Listen "Courthouse Steps Oral Arguments Teleforum: Carney v. Adams"
Episode Synopsis
In Delaware, there is a state constitutional provision that requires the state's three highest courts to have no more than a "bare majority" of judges to be affiliated with either major political party. James Adams, a Delaware resident and member of the Delaware bar, decided against applying for a judicial position due to the constitutional provision. Adams would not have qualified for the position because he is not a member of either the Republican party or the Democrat party. Adams subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutional provision that limits judges to members of either the Democratic or Republican parties. The district court found that Adams had partial Article III standing, and decided to review the case on the merits. On the merits, the district court found that the provision in question was unconstitutional in its entirety. Upon appeal, The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part, but reversed on the provisions for which Adams had been denied Article III standing at the district level. The Supreme Court granted cert and will decide whether a state constitutional amendment that effectively limits the qualifications of judicial applicants based on political affiliations is constitutional. Michael Dimino will join us to discuss the oral arguments and their implications. Featuring: -- Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
More episodes of the podcast FedSoc Forums
A Seat at the Sitting - November 2025
05/11/2025
SAP, Motorola, and the Future of PTAB Reform
31/10/2025
Law Firm Discrimination Investigations
31/10/2025
Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy?
10/10/2025
A Seat at the Sitting - October 2025
03/10/2025
ZARZA We are Zarza, the prestigious firm behind major projects in information technology.