The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Roy Moore Is (Still) Constitutionally Illiterate
A lesson in how to ensure you lose a case in court.
Readers may remember failed Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was twice removed from the bench for failing to comply with federal court orders. When Moore ran for Senate, I wrote a piece for The Weekly Standard (now available on the Washington Examiner website) detailing Moore's failure to understand much about our constitutional system. In the years that have passed, it is not clear his understanding has improved.
Moore may no longer be a justice, but he continues to file cases and represent clients. He recently represented the First Apostolic Church of East Baton Rouge Parish in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and it did not go well.
The church and its pastor, Mark Anthony Spell, objected to COVID-19 orders that prevented churches and other places of worship from holding in-person services during the early stages of the pandemic. They filed suit, but rather than argue that the state's stay-at-home orders were unconstitutonal insofar as they barred church services while allowing other businesses or institutions to remain open, Moore insisted on arguing that the Constitution bars any governmental order respecting a church's operation. According to Moore, church assembly is categorically "beyond the jurisdiction of the government."
Moore stuck to this position even when pressed at oral argument (as noted by Raffi Melkonian). The judges on the panel tried to suggest that the church should press other arguments, such as that it is unconstitutional to treat church assembly less favorably than other forms of assembly or to otherwise impose special burdens on religious exercise, but Moore would not relent. According to Moore, the only argument upon which they could prevail was that "separation of church and state means there's no jurisdictional position that the state can take where they can restrict church assembly."
As you might expect, this did not go well, and the Fifth Circuit panel (consisting of Judges Richman, Elrod and Oldham) ruled unanimously against the church in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Citing extensively from the oral argument transcript, the court explained that the church and its pastor, as represented by Moore, insisted on pressing a fruitless argument. Wrote the court:
Pastor Spell is the master of his case, and he cannot prevail on the theory he advances. Controlling precedent directly contradicts Pastor Spell's jurisdictional theory of the Religion Clauses.
Moore may have once been a state court justice, but it's clear he still has much to learn about the law.
(Hat tip: Advisory Opinions)
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
So there’s separation of Church & State unless there’s a Pandemic?? Moore losing the Senate seat turned out to be a (non denominational) blessing in disguise, whoever the Schlub that beat Moore got clobbered by a former Auburn Foo-bawl Coach. And such a scandal! an adult male attracted to (16 and above) teenage girls! If he’d just been a homo like Barney Fag and fix traffic tickets for his Gigolo he’d have been golden!
Frank
Oh, and Judge Moore was the Chief Justice of the Alabama Surpremes, and a Vietnam Vet, so maybe he's got a little of the PTSD,
cut the guy a break in other words,
Frank
I'd cut him some slack the first time. This isn't the first time.
How many times did that Senator who left a young woman to asphyxiate (not drowned, there's a difference) get?? Will Barry Hussein Osama speak at Judge Moore's funeral (hopefully not anytime soon) like he did with the aforementioned Senator?
Frank
See, this is why lawyers have trouble with originalism, and tend to drift away from it. It may result in you trying to argue the actual Constitution in court, instead of the Precedents that have replaced it. Safer to just pretend the precedents ARE the Constitution.
Trying to pretend that religion is inherently exempt from civil jurisdiction? I'm sure that Thugees and Moloch-worshippers would agree with you.
It's not as bonkers as all that. In Scotland they tried to run the same argument: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh032.pdf
The basic idea is that the UK Parliament may be sovereign under the English constitution, meaning that under English law it can "make or unmake any law whatever", but under Scottish law it cannot legislate church matters, because ever since the General Assembly Act 1592 and the Claim of Right Act 1689, all matters of church life and worship were outwith the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, and therefore the power to make law governing the Church of Scotland couldn't have been transferred to the UK parliament in 1707.
As it happens, the Court of Session wimped out and ducked the issue in the judgment cited above. But it's a non-crazy argument, and it's an argument that relies on pre-1776 UK law. So if you're going to be originalist about the separation of church and state, this story should be part of your evidence base.
For the avoidance of doubt, just because an argument is not crazy, doesn't mean it's right. Also, stare decisis is a thing.
Which part of the First Amendment says that a town cannot condemn a church building as being unsafe?
All of it
I mean, lower courts do kind of have to follow precedent (even precedent that's arguably inconsistent with Brett Bellmore's constitution) if the system is to have any coherence.
True, but Brett does have a point about the legal profession in general.
No, he doesn’t. Constitution in exile isn’t originalism, it’s being a crank.
Read Baude on the place of precedent in jurisprudence at the Founding.
Or just read Article III and the Seventh Amendment. The framers were explicit they were creating a common law system. And it's absolutely ignorant when expositors of the "real Constitution" ignore the Framers' own words on this.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
I see no mention of precedent.
What do you think "the judicial power" is?
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Why would I need to think about it ? Article III goes right on to tell me in terms - it consists in adjudicating cases and controversies.
Let me distinguish two different things.
(a) the fuss about Judge Moore and his statue. Article VI establishes the supremacy of federal constitutional and statute law, and Article III establishes that federal judges are the folk who decide cases using that ol' judicial power.
(b) whether Judge X in deciding a case is obliged to judge it according to Judge X's understanding of the relevant law, and its application to the facts of the case; or according to Judge Y's understanding of the relevant law (Judge Y being a higher ranking judge who has previously established a "precedent") and the application of Judge Y's understanding to the facts of the case.
In case (a) if Judge Moore fails to obey the order of the federal court, he has no leg to stand on. Because it's unarguably the court's right to decide the case. If they get it wrong in Judge Moore's opinion, that's irrelevant to the fact that he is required to obey.
But in case (b) if Judge X prefers his own opinion to the precedent set by Judge Y, he's not disobeying a higher court order. He's just deciding the case. And Article VI commands him to give ultimate authority to :
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof..."
A judicial precedent is not either of those things. A precedent is the result of a previous adjudication of a previous case or controversy, from which lawyers deduce an interpretation of the law that should - it is argued - be followed in like cases. But it's not actually the law made pursuant to the Constitution. It's an interpretation thereof. And as we know, from time to time precedents are overturned, or ignored.
Therefore what Article VI actually says to Judge X is - when adjudicating the case before you, your duty is to apply your best shot at what the law is. If that disagrees with the precedent, then the precedent has to give way. Of course if Judge X is wise, and humble (not a characteristic for which judges are well known) he might give pause. Am I really smarter than the judge who set the precedent ?
But Judge X is in a different position to Judge Moore. He's not deciding whether to obey a court order. He's deciding a case under the constraint imposed by Article VI. In which precedent is not mentioned.
Now practically it would be much better if Article VI made it clear that in interpreting the law and the constitution, while adjudicating cases, lower judges are to be bound by precedent from higher judges, however nutty the lower judge might think that precedent is.
But that's not what Article VI says. And you can only squeeze precedent into Article VI by pretending that a "precedent" is a law of the United States made pursuant to the Constitution. But it isn't. Article III establishes no judicial power to make law. It is establishes a judicial power to decide cases.
You don't think the manner in which the judiciary was/is supposed to decide those cases and controversies involves adherence to precedent?
Sure, if we were in England. But England has no Article VI.
Precedent is one of those non-textual laws or rules that Prof Baude likes to talk about. Article VI doesn't say you can't use such rules, it merely says that such rules are inferior to the superior rules which are explicitly defined as - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof"
We know that judicial deference to precedent is not one of the superior rules, because it is not mentioned in the constitution. And if it is mentioned in any of the "laws of the United States" made in pursuance of the constitution (I don't know if it is) then sure judges are bound to apply it, if and to the extent that following precedent is not in conflict with the constitution. But if following precedent is in conflict with the constitution, or if it is in conflict with the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, then an American judge is bound by Article VI to ignore precedent.
An English judge, not so much.
If your approach to interpreting the constitution is that nothing that isn't spelled out there at a 3rd grader reading level doesn't exist, I really don't know how to help you. I wish you lots of luck arguing that defamation laws are unconstitutional.
I can see you’re an Article 9¾ kind of constitutional scholar.
Seventh amendment references common law, and Article III says the judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity. The framers were absolutely explicit that we would have a precedent based legal system.
I’m assuming they wanted to seek cert on this issue hoping the conservative justices would adopt this broad separation rule. The only explanation that makes sense to me.
That would be my assumption, too. You can't change the precedents without challenging them.
You can’t change precedents by choosing instead to tilt at windmills.
Under your legal paradigm lawyers shouldn’t study Constitutional precedents, but only their take on the Constitution and always argue for that.
Oh hey, it's an actual groomer.
Man, conservatives really do attract grown-ass adult men who advocate dating high school students.
Try to recall that he never approached girls who weren't above the legal age of consent. You might have forgotten this because a serious effort was made to create the contrary impression.
That means that, definitionally, he wasn't a "groomer".
Yeah, neither of those statements is correct.
Your lack of documentation is noted. (Bold letters don't count)
Maybe You're the "Groomer"
Fuck man, I dated High School Students until I was, lets see, 1990-1962,
I was 28,
College Bee-otches were well, Bee-otches,
HS girls would suck your dick before even a first "Date"
C'mon (man!) I can't be the only one,
Oh, and I never left any of them to asphyxiate (not drowned, there's a difference)
Did meet the current Mrs. Drackman in 1991, as a Desert Storm Vet, M.D., I should have held out longer...
Frank
edgebot's a sexual predator who targeted teenage girls
What is the goal here? Is the goal to win cases for clients? Or is the goal to make political points that you can then quote in fundraising campaigns to donors looking for someone saying what they want to hear? Campaigns that talk about how judges have betrayed the constitution etc. etc.?
If you want to do that, what benefit does it give you to acquiesce to arguments acceptable to the system as it is?
I suppose that's true, as long as Pastor Spell and Roy Moore both have the same goal.
The concurring opinion suggests that Roy Moore snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Perhaps Moore is auditioning to represent Donald Trump.
At least the decision is not precedential.
I gave up on Moore when he indicated there was a religious test for Congressional service.
OK, not an official one, but no way as a Jew I'm voting for a Moose-lum or a Catholic (OK, have voted (grudgingly) for a few Catholics)
Although the worst are probably the "Non Evangelical" Christians
Frank
When you've lost Oldham — who desperately, desperately, desperately wanted to rule in Moore's client's favor — you're really far out there.
Uh, why would you assume that his clients weren't on board with this strategy?