judges

Two Sacramento judges Friday ordered changes in the wording of ballot measures that would move California to an open primary system, change car insurance rate structures and charge lobbyists to fund campaigns for secretary of state candidates.

The changes resolved disputes over what is supposed to be neutral wording of the titles and summaries of the measures as well as the text of arguments to be published in the voter’s manual for the June 8 election. Monday is the deadline for getting the final versions to the printer.

On Proposition 14, the open primary measure, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other supporters said they beat back an effort by union officials and lawmakers to undermine the proposal that would allow Californians to vote in state primaries regardless of candidates’ or voters’ party affiliations.

The measure also would advance the top two vote-getters in each contest instead of the winner from each party. It would not apply to presidential elections.

Legislators grudgingly put the measure on the ballot as part of a budget deal last year. They had directed their attorneys not to fight the challenge by the California School Employees Assn., a major donor to many Democrats, to strip statements that the measure would encourage more voter participation and “reform” the election process.

The governor and state Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) intervened to stave off the changes. Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner ruled Friday that voters should see the measure very much as it was originally written. Sumner made minor changes to the wording regarding potential costs related to an open primary and made clear that voters would not have to state a party preference.

“I’m glad this sneaky attempt to derail the open primary failed,” Maldonado said.

Leaders of the Democrat-controlled Legislature said their attempt at a settlement was merely intended to fix flawed ballot language in danger of being stricken by a higher court.

“We’re pleased with the process and the clarity it provided,” said Shannon Murphy, a spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles).

Sumner also resolved disputes over the wording of Proposition 17. Backers of the measure, which would allow insurers to offer a continuous-coverage discount to new customers, were fighting even the official description written by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s office.

Supporters of the measure, which was proposed by and is being bankrolled by Mercury Insurance, wanted to strike the phrase added by Brown that the measure “will allow insurance companies to increase the cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.”

“All Proposition 17 does is allow people to take it with them when they move to a new insurance company and get the lower rate,” argued Richard Martland, an attorney for the supporters.

But Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield said the measure is a thinly disguised attempt by Mercury to be allowed to charge higher rates for those it doesn’t want to insure. Rosenfield’s attorney, Fredric Woocher, said the proposition is being misleadingly cast as an opportunity for drivers to retain their loyalty discounts even if they switch insurers.

“You can’t take it with you,” Woocher said. “You are taking away the one thing that makes persistency persistent. It would be like taking a good student discount and extending it to people who fail.”

Sumner declined to change the official wording of the ballot summary and rejected most calls to alter the arguments. Such “political speech” is protected by the 1st Amendment, the judge said. He revised only the wording on the possible effects for some military personnel and a potential maximum surcharge.

In the challenge to Proposition 15, which would change the financing for future secretary of state races, Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette’s changes met with supporters’ approval, said campaign chairman Trent Lange.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., which opposes the measure, had filed a lawsuit arguing that the ballot summary and title were inaccurate. The group wanted the title changed from “California Fair Elections Act” to “Public Financing of Campaigns.”

The judge rejected the proposed change, though he did add a line indicating that the measure repeals the state’s existing ban on public funding of campaigns.

carol.williams@latimes.com

Times staff writers Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento contributed to this report.

On Friday, a group of retired judges stepped off a tour bus in a ritzy Michigan suburb after three days of barnstorming through corn fields, cities and coal towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania. They carried with them a message.

In courthouses and public squares, they marked the nation’s 250th anniversary with a dire warning: The rule of law in America is in grave danger. They delivered a similar message at a library in Grosse Pointe just outside Detroit — the last stop on an extraordinary tour to defend judicial independence and bolster trust in courts.

Americans’ confidence in the court system and democracy has dipped in recent years. The country is more polarized, and President Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the fairness of the judicial system.

Some judges on the tour said in phone interviews this week that the United States was at a precipice.

“Looking back in history, we have teetered,” former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly said. “This is a moment where we can decide to reinstill those beliefs that we are a country of laws and not of men.”

Judges step off the bench

The four-day tour through the Rust Belt is a sharp departure for a typically reserved and insular branch of government. Federal judges in particular largely limit their comments to the courtroom and written decisions, focusing on the facts of individual cases.

But that restraint is loosening amid a barrage of attacks by Trump and other White House officials, the administration’s rampant defiance of U.S. district court orders and its expansive view of executive power. Trump has called a district judge who ruled against one of his immigration moves “crooked” and suggested with no evidence that Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs were motivated by foreign interests.

More federal judges have recently begun talking about receiving death threats and profane messages, though they have not blamed Trump or any other officials. Some have blasted administration policies in sharply worded opinions that strayed beyond the legal dispute before them. Even U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has weighed in.

In an appearance in March, Roberts said personal criticism of federal judges was dangerous and had to stop. The rare rebuke from the head of the nation’s top court came two days after Trump’s remark about a “crooked” judge, though Roberts didn’t mention Trump or anyone else by name.

The U.S. Marshals Service reported 564 threats against federal judges in the government fiscal year that ended in September, up from 509 the year before.

“I don’t want to say we have moved into an era of lawlessness, but it sometimes feels that way,” said former U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts, who joined the bus tour in Michigan.

Timothy Lewis, another former federal judge on the tour, said his concerns about the politicization of the judicial branch reached a tipping point a decade ago, when Senate Republicans thwarted President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Today, the rule of law is facing an “existential threat” from an ongoing breakdown of norms, according to Lewis, who spent seven years on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I have fundamental concerns,” he said, “about where we are headed as a nation.”

Their route has been varied

The tour started Tuesday in the western Pennsylvania town of Greensburg — once the hub of a thriving coal industry that now lures visitors from nearby Pittsburgh for highland recreation and a historic downtown.

Judges mingled with customers at a coffee shop before speaking at the domed, ornate Westmoreland County Courthouse. Then it was off to Washington, also in western Pennsylvania. The town of 13,000 people, where about 15% of the population is Black, was a key stop on the Underground Railroad and a regional base for the civil rights movement.

From there, the bus headed west for events Wednesday in Columbus, Ohio, and the city of Wooster in Amish country. The judges stopped at a Cracker Barrel restaurant on the way. They spent Thursday in Cleveland before circling Lake Erie north to Michigan.

The two groups that planned the tour — dubbed “Justice in Motion” — say they were inspired by a similar campaign in Poland in 2021 after that country’s governing party took control of key judicial institutions.

Independent Polish judges visited scores of towns to promote the rule of law and teach voters about the country’s constitution. The U.S. tour also aims to educate people.

An effort to combat misinformation about what they do

Maureen O’Connor, a former chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, said judges risk ceding the narrative about their roles and motives to “voices of misinformation” if they don’t speak up.

A letter she received years ago, and still keeps, reminds her of that danger. The writer accused O’Connor, a Republican, of betraying her party when she repeatedly struck down Republican-drawn legislative maps as illegal gerrymanders. “There was just a basic misunderstanding of what my role was as a judge,” O’Connor said.

O’Connor is among roughly 30 judges, including two former federal judges and two current federal judges, who participated in the tour. One of the federal judges was nominated by a Democrat, the other three by Republicans. The state judges, some of whom are also still on the bench, represented both parties.

They were joined by former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, former Ohio attorneys general and a few lawyers. The event was put together by the Democracy Rising Collaborative and Keep Our Republic, nonpartisan advocacy groups.

Organizers say they chose stops that would get the judges in front of as many people as possible to build connections and trust. The judges embraced that mission.

“The lifeblood of the judiciary is public confidence,” Donnelly, the former Ohio Supreme Court justice, said. “If you lose that, it’s very difficult to get it back.”

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

A three-judge panel on Wednesday denied a request from the Kennedy Center’s board to keep President Trump’s name on the institution while the board appeals an earlier ruling that dubbed the name change illegal and had it rescinded.

It’s another setback for the board of trustees, of which Trump is chairman, in a saga that began earlier this year when the Kennedy Center became: “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

The conspicuous addition, and ensuing legal battle, became symbolic of Trump’s broader push to imprint his legacy — and, in this case, his actual name — on the nation’s capitol in his final term.

The panel of judges wrote Wednesday that the request “failed to show how they will be irreparably injured” if Trump’s name remains off the building through the appeal process.

The board had argued that the the removal “threatens to impede” fundraising efforts, but the judges found that claim came without the support of “specific facts or evidence.”

The Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

A federal judge earlier this year ruled that the name change was illegal, and Trump’s name was removed from the building’s white marble facade in June.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

MILWAUKEE — A federal judge on Wednesday considered whether to throw out a jury’s guilty verdict against former Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted of felony obstruction for helping an immigrant evade federal officers.

The case was an early test of how the courts would respond to President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

Dugan had been scheduled to be sentenced on Wednesday, but U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman postponed the proceedings indefinitely to instead hear arguments about whether to overturn her conviction.

Adelman did not rule from the bench and did not indicate when he might issue a decision. Dugan and attorneys for both sides left the courtroom without commenting to reporters.

Former judge’s attorney points to a Virginia case

Dugan’s attorney Steven Biskupic argued that her conviction was invalid and should be overturned. He said that was necessary because a federal appeals court in April overturned a key Virginia immigration case that the judge and prosecutors had cited in the Dugan case.

Biskupic argued that based on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturning that ruling, Dugan was improperly convicted, procedurally, under a certain federal law.

“Our primary argument is this was an invalid theory of conviction,” Biskupic said.

In the Virginia case, an immigrant who was in the country illegally was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and later escaped. He was recaptured and indicted on a charge of obstructing a pending immigration proceeding.

The federal appeals court found that the ICE action did not constitute a “pending proceeding,” as is required under the federal obstruction law.

Dugan’s attorneys argue that she should not have been charged because there was no “pending proceeding” against the immigrant in her courtroom being sought by ICE agents, only a warrant filed for his arrest. The filing of a warrant does not constitute a “proceeding” under the law, Biskupic argued.

Prosecutors countered that the facts in the Virginia case are different and don’t apply to Dugan’s. They also argued that other cases support Dugan’s conviction.

“The court should stick with its ruling,” said Richard Frohling, acting U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin.

In response to a question from the judge, he contended that the appeals court was wrong to overturn the Virginia case. The judge also quizzed Frohling on what constitutes a proceeding under the law and how long it lasts.

“It could be a couple minutes, it could be a couple years,” Frohling said. “It all depends on the context.”

Dugan’s sentencing was postponed so the court can hear new arguments

Dugan, 67, faces up to five years in prison after a jury convicted her on Dec. 19. But it is unlikely that Dugan would be sentenced to prison. Federal sentencing guidelines generally call for probation for defendants like her who have no criminal history and are convicted of a nonviolent crime.

She resigned from her position as a Milwaukee County circuit judge two weeks after her conviction amid threats of impeachment from Republican state lawmakers. She had been a judge for nine years.

Dugan was present for Wednesday’s arguments but did not speak.

The Trump administration brought the case against Dugan as the president pressed ahead with his sweeping immigration crackdown. Trump’s administration and his allies branded Dugan as an activist judge, while Dugan’s attorneys said she was being unfairly targeted and argued, unsuccessfully, that she was immune from being charged because she was a judge.

Dugan’s case marked the first time that a state judge in Wisconsin went to trial on charges of obstructing immigration agents. She was acquitted of concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor.

Dugan helped an immigrant wanted by ICE agents

On April 18, 2025, immigration officers went to the Milwaukee County courthouse after learning Eduardo Flores-Ruiz had reentered the country illegally and was scheduled to appear before Dugan for a hearing in a state battery case.

Dugan confronted agents outside her courtroom and directed them to the chief judge’s office because she told them their administrative warrant wasn’t sufficient grounds to arrest Flores-Ruiz.

After the agents left, she led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a private jury door. Agents spotted Flores-Ruiz in the corridor, followed him outside and arrested him after a foot chase. A week later, FBI agents arrested Dugan in the courthouse, leading her outside in handcuffs.

Flores-Ruiz was deported in November.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

Sometimes it seems as though the only thing that stands between a functioning democracy and a full-on Trump autocracy is a thin, black-robed line.

Although the Supreme Court, in general, and conservative appellate courts, in particular, have bowed and granted President Trump permission to do pretty much anything he wants, they haven’t thoroughly capitulated to his endless grasping for ever more power. (The way invertebrate congressional Republicans have.)

At the lower-court level, judges have repeatedly ruled in ways intended to check Trump, most notably when it comes to violating civil and constitutional rights in pursuit of his indiscriminate immigration dragnet.

The tendency to slow-walk his administration’s response to those rulings — and ignore others that Trump thinks he can safely snub — only contribute to the perception of presidential lawlessness and a sense that our judicial system is being strained to something approaching a breaking point.

Go ahead, if you’d like, and dismiss those concerns as just so much overwrought hand-wringing, or the mindless anti-Trump blathering of your friendly political columnist. A new survey of legal experts — including federal judges, top-tier lawyers and scores of professors from some of the country’s leading law schools — finds widespread concern about the brittle state of our legal system.

And it’s not just the fears of a lot of shaggy-thinking liberals.

“The nation is strong as is its commitment to the rule of law,” said one appellate judge, a Republican appointee. “The current president presents the greatest threat in decades.”

The survey was conducted by Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan academic group that monitors the health and resilience of American democracy, in conjunction with the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s School of Law.

Conducted between mid-February and early March, the poll anonymously surveyed 21 federal judges, 113 lawyers, 193 law professors, 652 political scientists and a nationally representative sample of 2,750 Americans.

What leapt out to UCLA’s Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, was that “across the ideological spectrum and across judges, lawyers and law professors, there was considerable agreement that the rule of law in the U.S. is under tremendous stress.” That consensus, he said, suggests “a real risk to democracy.”

Most legal experts agreed that Trump is using executive power excessively, with a majority doubting the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would handle cases involving the Trump administration impartially. The experts also expressed concern about politicized law enforcement — Trump seeking to persecute his perceived enemies — executive branch overreach, and the failure of Congress or the Supreme Court to do more to rein in the rogue president.

Eight in 10 of those surveyed said federal officials fail to comply with court orders somewhat or very often, and nearly 9 in 10 said political appointees in Trump’s Justice Department mislead federal judges somewhat or very often.

Talk about contempt of court — not to mention our vital system of checks and balances.

There was, unsurprisingly, a split among conservatives and liberals who took part in the survey. (The study defined legal conservatives as those saying the Supreme Court should base rulings on its understanding of what the Constitution meant as originally written. Liberals, who made up most of the respondents, were defined as those saying the court should base its rulings on what the Constitution means in current times.)

Conservatives, for instance, were more likely than liberals to see former President Biden as a greater threat to the rule of law than Trump. Liberals were more likely than conservatives to see evidence of Trump politicizing the Justice Department.

There were also differences between legal experts — those most intimately involved in the judicial system — and the public at large. The experts were more concerned about Trump’s excesses and threats to the rule of law, which, Hasen said, stands to reason.

The legal system is not something most people encounter daily in the same way they do, say, gasoline prices or the cost of groceries. “Yet,” Hasen said, “it’s one of these background things that really matters.”

Why?

Hasen put it this way: “Imagine that a person had a dispute with their neighbor and it ended up in small claims court before a judge and the judge made the decision not based on the merits of the case but based on whether he was friends with one of the parties, or didn’t like people who were similar to one of the parties.”

Now imagine that kind of corrupted, perverted system of justice writ large.

If, for instance, “people know that the government can successfully seek retribution from people who criticize it, people will be less likely to criticize the government,” Hasen said, leaving the country worse off by muzzling those who would hold their elected leaders to account.

Or if, say, rioters overran the U.S. Capitol and tried to steal an election and, instead of being punished, received cash payouts from the federal government, what incentive would there be to follow the law?

Happily — and who couldn’t use a bit of good cheer right about now — all is not lost.

People “can demand that their elected representatives take steps to assure that the rule of law will be followed,” Hasen said, and can insist “that the government [not] play favorites or seek retribution against perceived enemies.”

That’s the power people have, come election time. That’s why voting matters.

There are lots of things riding on the outcome in November, not least the sanctity and integrity of our legal system.

Bear that in mind when you cast your ballot.