The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Maryland Joins Most Other States in How It Names Its Courts
By nearly 75%-25%, Maryland voters approved a constitutional amendment that renames the "Maryland Court of Appeals" to "Maryland Supreme Court" (since it's the highest court in the state), and the "Maryland Court of Special Appeals" to "Maryland Appellate Court" (since it's the intermediate appellate court).
I know of no plans for New York to change its approach, which has caused much confusion. West Virginia calls its high court the court the "Supreme Court of Appeals"; Maine and Massachusetts call theirs the "Supreme Judicial Court"; and Texas and Oklahoma have a "Supreme Court" that's the highest court for civil cases and a "Court of Criminal Appeals" that's the highest court for criminal cases.
No word on whether there are plans to dye Maryland judicial robes the more familiar black, instead of this:

Thanks to Michael Rosman for the pointer.
UPDATE: @JackGFla points out that I'm behind the times—West Virginia now has an Intermediate Court of Appeals, which was authorized in 2021. Note, though, that the Supreme Court of Appeals web page seems to be also behind the times, still saying that "West Virginia is one of only nine jurisdictions with a single appellate court" (unless I'm misinterpreting that line).
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Black as a sign of mourning for their unique naming convention!
Now do your robes. That red hurts my eyes.
My guess -- a guess -- is that the Red comes from Maryland's Catholic tradition and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church -- Cardinals wear red.
Why do you do this?
English high court judges traditionally wore scarlet robes and many American courts followed suit in the colonial and early republican period. They fell out of style by the 19th century. Including in Maryland, where they were reintroduced in the 70s.
Next they'll be wearing wigs too and be referred to as "M'lud".
Huh. I always assumed it was related to the red section of their flag (which is from the "Crossland Banner" used by pro-Confederate Marylanders during the U.S. Civil War). You learn something new every day. Thanks.
Because he watched too much Cheers and thought Cliff Clavin was the protagonist?
I stand corrected -- https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/import/lawlib/aboutus/history/judgesrobes.pdf
I clerked on the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and am in the midst of job searching now...Afraid I'm going to have to put some explanatory notes in my resume when the change becomes effective on 12/14/22. 😛
HA! I too clerked there and had exactly that same thought when I saw this. The name change makes sense, but might also be a pain in my rear. Luckily, I don't plan on looking for another job anytime soon. *knock on wood*
I wondered if that would happen, and was happy to see they didn't just change the definition for the same name, but came up with a new name.
There's selling these at WalMart?!
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Guilty-As-Charged-Judge-Costume/653607340
Needs long white wigs.
Doesn't Canada still wear the long wigs?
IANAA -- and only saw it on Canadian TV.
Nope. They weren’t even wearing them for the 1957 State Opening of Parliament when the Queen herself delivered the Speech from the Throne instead of the Governor General. If they didn’t do it at that formal of an occasion back then I can safely assume they no longer do it at all.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1564903428
The Court sits right in front of Her Majesty in their red robes.
Apparently they don't -- at least anymore.
See: https://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/enews/enews-11-09-2018
You would know the answer if you remembered the season 2 episode of Boston Legal where Alan and Denny butt into a courtroom in British Columbia in full regalia only to have the judge tell them "We don't wear wigs in Canada'.
Legal education is not yet based entirely on TV shows.
Dr. Ed seems to have missed the Foreign Procedure course at BU Law.
As, apparently, did Alan and Denny.
" Maine and Massachusetts call theirs the "Supreme Judicial Court"
There is more to that -- the way the Danvers (not Salem) Witch matter was ended (after they accused the Governor's wife of being a witch) was the Royal Governor simply abolishing the court and replacing it with a completely different one.
But it is more that the legislature is *also* a "court" -- the General Court -- and it comes from the British system where *all* governmental bodies were "courts."
When Maine broke off in 1820, it took the SJC nomenclature, but calls it's legislature a "legislature" -- it's also a "state."
If the judges of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals are that tipsy, their waiters must get paid very well.
(“They call drinking deep dyeing scarlet.” William Shakespeare, Henry IV Part I, Act II Scene 4)
Hem!
"Texas and Oklahoma have a "Supreme Court" that's the highest court for civil cases and a "Court of Criminal Appeals" that's the highest court for criminal cases."
This approach is underrated and more states should do it. Criminal law is specialized enough, and high volume enough, that it makes sense to have a court of final jurisdiction solely for criminal matters. Those jurists can then be experts in that without worrying about everything else and the "regular" Supreme Court justices don't have to dabble in the hyperspecialized world of crim law. I might also support the same thing for family law.
If the laws are that complicated, it suggests they need to be simplified.
How is any ordinary person supposed to understand criminal law if even justices, who have months to study case, and law libraries and staffs to assist, are still at such a loss that they need to be split into civil and criminal supreme courts?
The point of the criminal court in part is to make things easier and clearer. The specialized court can review more cases, issue more opinions, and overturn more misapplications of the law by lower courts. In TX/OK you are far more likely to find something four corners on point just because there's more precedents out there.
What's more, to the extent we're indulging the fiction that criminals do research before deciding to break the law, then it's almost never somebody breaking a law they had no idea existed or being prosecuted under some obscure crime, it's whether what they did counts as manslaughter or murder. So they don't get to complain about this, they knew what they were doing was illegal even if it's not entirely clear whether the lenient or harsh statute applies to them. Any simplification would likely toss out the lenient and keep the harsh, so that wouldn't really help them either.
The question which comes to immediate mind involves cases which are *both* criminal and civil -- for example, a rape case is often both a criminal charge and a related civil suit by the victim, with the criminal conviction serving as the evidence for the civil suit. Same thing with an OUI with serious personal injury.
Another example -- an ink factory in a yuppified neighborhood explodes, destroying 16 homes. https://www.csb.gov/csb-investigation-into-massive-2006-cai-explosion-in-danvers-massachusetts-concludes-lack-of-company-safeguards-allowed-solvent-vapor-to-accumulate-when-ink-mixing-tank-was-left-heating-overnight/
It is hypothetically possible that there could have been criminal violations of state law for what caused the explosion (and would be had Massachusetts been bright enough to write some) along with civil suits for all the damages. (Including subrogation suits from insurance companies.)
In Massachusetts, any such issue would go to the singular SJC -- but what happens in Texas where the two courts may come to different conclusions? I can see it getting really messy....
The issues the court of criminal appeals addresses are not, typically, whether something is illegal. (That would certainly fall under their purview, but it's not what they're generally addressing.) They're addressing issues of criminal procedure, things of that nature.
Texas elects judges -- Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was a Judge before becoming a Congressman.
New York is considering an extensive court reorganization plan that would combine a bunch of existing trial courts, like Family Court and the Court of Claims, into the Supreme Court. An earlier version contemplated renaming the combined trial court of general jurisdiction as Superior Court, a common name for such courts in other states, but that did not survive in the current proposal. I don't know why.
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/doc/25286
At the same time, Massachusetts is trying to segregate cases into specialized courts. MA created a Housing Court (with authority of a Superior Court) about 15 years ago. There now is a Drug Court which is on the District Court level. There is a Probate & Family Court, not sure if that is new.
The rationale is that specialization enables a court to better deal with specific issues, and to develop an expertise with the specific nuances of those issues. That was the rationale for the housing court and I think it was a good idea,
West Virginia now has an intermediate appellate court: the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals.
It’s relatively recent, but it’s now hearing cases and issuing rulings/opinions/orders etc.
http://www.courtswv.gov/lower-courts/intermediate-court.html
Cardinals. Remember, Maryland was founded by Catholics for whom red robes were a sign of authority.
Echoing Dr. Ed? Going to be a long time before you live this one down.
I stand by it.
While this makes sense, I fear that confusion on the part of people from other states will be replaced by confusion of Marylanders, including young lawyers, about past litigation.
Did anyone ever consider that these changes are just part of serving the agenda of Big BlueBook? Now people are going to have to get updated editions to find out how to cite cases in this newly-renamed court.
I wish some of them would go back to calling themselves a "Court of Errors," as that never fails to amuse when I run across it.