Gavel Grab

Numerous Federal efforts to remove jurisdiction from the courts pertaining to matters such as the Pledge of Allegiance or the phrase “under God” have been introduced in recent years. Similar attempts to remove or alter the jurisdiction of the state courts have also been considered, some echoing or outright copying their Congressional counterparts. What follows are just some of the bills introduced in the last two years.

Arizona’s SCR 1026 of 2007 would have removed jurisdiction over cases where a government employee issued an “acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.” The author told local media that “[W]e’re supposed to have religion in everything — the opportunity to have religion in everything. I want religion in government, I want my government to have a faith-based perspective.” The bill was withdrawn shortly after being introduced.

Indiana’s SJR 12 of 2007 would have prohibited courts from issuing any order “requiring the State or a political subdivision of the State to expend money for the operation of any court of the State.” New Jersey had a series of similar bills in 2007. ACR 174 would have prohibited state courts from requiring that state government spend money. ACR 177 would have prohibited courts from ordering municipalities to provide for any particular land use within municipal borders.

Educational funding proved to be a key source of state court stripping efforts. New Jersey’s ACR 189 would have forbidden judicial involvement in educational spending. Similarly, Kansas’ SCR 1601 of 2007 would have specified school funding levels were the exclusive domain of the legislature, thereby prohibiting courts from entertaining lawsuits regarding adequate education. New Hampshire’s HCR 1 of 2007 would have allowed such lawsuits, but rendered any judicial decision advisory only and not binding on the executive or legislative branches.

Missouri’s HJR 1 of 2007, in its original form, would have prohibited courts from “instructing or ordering” taxes or “how to spend, allocate, or budget fiscal resources.” This version passed the House but a Senate committee substitute with more limited language would have required that “under no circumstances shall a court of this state order the general assembly or executive to increase taxes or create new taxes.” This version failed to reach full Senate approval before the end of the 2007 session. However, SJR 42 of 2008 and HJR 41 of 2008 have been introduced with much of their language derived from HJR 1 of 2007.

From the 1-18-08 issue of Gavel to Gavel, a review of state legislation affecting the courts. Read the entire issue and subscribe here.

Tags: , Arizona, Court-stripping legislation, Federal Courts, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey