When judges are accused of breaking the law

A fascinating legal battle may play itself out in the federal courts involving actions by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on two of the most controversial rulings the court made in recent years.

A lawsuit filed by the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters against Pennsylvania's former chief justice alleges that the state's top court upheld the 2004 slot-machine gambling law in exchange for approval of a 2005 judicial pay raise.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Harrisburg, names former Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy as the defendant and cited allegations and information provided by unnamed legislators, according to The Associated Press. The suit alleges Cappy used secret meetings with legislators to negotiate the ruling on the slots law and a pay raise for more than 1,000 judges, including himself and six other Supreme Court justices, the wire service says.

Cappy resigned from the court in January, two full years before his term expired. Another justice who served on the court during the controversial rulings resigned earlier and a third justice failed to win his retention election. All three departures have been tied to the July 2005 pay raise fiasco, which also claimed 55 incumbent state lawmakers so far.

The 17-page lawsuit drew immediate denials from Cappy and a threat by his successor, Ronald Castille. "The filing parties may have subjected themselves to sanctions, and the attorney may have subjected himself to disciplinary action," Chief Justice Castille said in a written statement issued Tuesday.

It's the strong-arm tactics by Castille that are drawing the most attention.

"It's totally inappropriate for the chief justice to threaten a lawyer for allegations made in federal court against the courts or any judge," Professor Bruce Ledewitz of the Duquesne Law School told The Harrisburg Patriot-News.

Veteran political columnist John Baer of The Philadelphia Daily News, said the lawsuit won't help the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's already battered image.

Baer writes:

"There are lots of questions here, not least of which is whether this suit gets very far. Federal courts generally aren't inclined to play in state issues. A similar though broader suit filed by Common Cause in 2006 failed in one federal court and is pending appeal in another. But for Pennsylvania, there's nothing in here that strikes me as a stretch. And the fundamental question of whether we have separation of powers or collusion of the powerful is a critical one. It should be answered."

And Lowman S. Henry, writing at Lincoln Blog, says the threats by Castille amount to "official repression."

Henry writes:

"Castille's comments yesterday were inappropriate and frankly unbecoming a member of the bench. They betrayed a temperament that calls into question his ability to function effectively as a member of the high court, much less its chief justice. In fact, Castille's outright threats against the lawyers and plaintiffs in the League of Women Voters case are so egregious they merit review, and possible impeachment proceedings by the General Assembly. Simply put, he is now incapable of serving as an unbiased jurist."

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is elected by the voters, has never enjoyed a national reputation for setting new legal ground. It's often a refuge for former politicians. Under Cappy's leadership, the court's reputation has suffered even more thanks to controversial rulings on the flawed casino gambling bill and the ill-fated pay raise that politicians gave themselves and judges.

Going after the League of Women Voters and threatening a lawyer for filing a lawsuit on behalf of his client is not going to help the court's reputation ... or give Pennsylvania residents any assurance that the courts are working on behalf of the people.

As Lowman Henry pointed out in a Monday post at Lincoln Blog:

"The illusion spun by the legal profession that judges are above politics has been popped, by of all groups, the League of Women Voters. The League of Women Voters is not known for its political activism, preferring instead to hue to a lower profile educational role. The back room dealing involved with the now infamous middle-of-the-night pay grab, however, proved to be too much for the league to take."

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review put the matter in proper perspective in an editorial the newspaper published today:

"If the allegations are true, they would represent a level of public corruption unparalleled in Keystone State history. If they are not, however, the credibility of the plaintiff will be -- and should be -- damaged beyond repair."

The point is that this lawsuit should be allowed to play itself out in the federal courts, without interference or threats from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. No one is above the law, including the distinguished past and present members of the state's high court.