Senate asks Supreme Court to revisit impeachment decision

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The state Senate has filed its request for a decision blocking impeachment trials for state Supreme Court justices to be reconsidered.

An acting version of the Supreme Court ruled a month ago that the Legislature had violated the separation of powers in articles dealing with how the judiciary governs itself.

The acting Supreme Court also ruled that the House of Delegates had violated its own procedures when it impeached West Virginia’s remaining Supreme Court justices.

That halted the impeachment trials for Chief Justice Margaret Workman, retired Justice Robin Davis and suspended Justice Allen Loughry, who has since been convicted on 11 federal charges.

Outside counsel for the state Senate filed a motion on Monday taking issue with all of that.

“In striking down the Articles of Impeachment against Petitioner on the grounds that they violate the Separation of Powers doctrine, and the Judicial Branch’s inherent authority to ‘keep its own house in order,’ the Opinion ignores that the judiciary’s authority in that regard is explicitly overridden when it comes to the Constitution’s ‘specific grant’ of impeachment to the Legislature,” the lawyers wrote.

The arguments may have a practical effect on whether remaining impeachment trials still proceed or whether they’re just done.

But the arguments also may help determine the expectations and boundaries for any future impeachment actions in West Virginia.

John Shott

“They’ve inserted themselves into the process,” House Judiciary Chairman John Shott said today on MetroNews’ “Talkline.

“What the makeshift Supreme Court essentially did was amend the constitution on its own,” said Shott, who managed the impeachment process in the House of Delegates.

Among the arguments by the Senate is that the acting Supreme Court’s opinion ignores the Constitution’s exclusive grant of impeachment powers to the Legislature.

The Senate’s lawyers note that the impeachment ruling quoted earlier case law to say the judicial branch has the inherent authority to keep its own house of order, free of legislative intrusion.

The piece of case law, as it quoted by the acting Supreme Court, used ellipses to specifically clip a reference to the power to impeach.

Here’s how it appeared in the acting court’s ruling:

“The separation of powers doctrine implies that each branch of government has inherent power to ‘keep its own house in order,’ absent a specific grant of power to another branch… This theory recognizes that each branch of government must have sufficient power to carry out its assigned tasks and that these constitutionally assigned tasks will be performed properly within the governmental branch itself.”

The actual words after the ellipses are “such as the power to impeach.”

“By omitting the critical reference to the Legislature’s power to impeach, the Court relied upon an incomplete statement of the law on the extent to which it is free to ‘keep its own house in order.'”

Lawyers for the Senate also argue that while the original petition by Chief Justice Margaret Workman named the Senate, the ruling found fault with procedures in the House of Delegates.

That violates the separation of powers as it applies to the Legislature, the lawyers for the Senate wrote.

“The omission of the House of Delegates from these proceedings, in light of the issuance of a writ of prohibition, raises a Separation of Powers issue that warrants rehearing,” the lawyers wrote.

In any case, the judiciary crossed a boundary by ruling on House procedures, the Senate’s lawyers contend.

“By adjudicating the validity of procedures used by the House of Delegates, this Court has clearly affected the House of Delegates’ inherent authority ‘to keep its own house in order’ pursuant to the Separation of Powers Doctrine,’ the lawyers wrote.

The House of Delegates is expected to submit its own motion to intervene in the case.

“They talk a lot about due process, but they denied the House any right to defend its process,” Shott said today on “Talkline.”

The lawyers for the Senate are Mark Adkins, Floyd Boone, Lara Brandfass and Richie Heath, all with Bowles Rice. That’s the same firm that employs House Speaker Roger Hanshaw.

Senate impeachment trials were scheduled for Workman, Davis and Loughry through late October and November, but all were blocked by the acting court’s ruling on a motion filed by Workman.

One impeachment trial was completed. Over two days, senators heard evidence about one article focusing on Justice Beth Walker and then acquitted her. In the end, they voted to censure Walker.

Lawmakers are considering a special session for next week to move ahead with a new impeachment of Loughry, based on his federal conviction.

Loughry is fighting the conviction in federal court, though. His lawyer, John Carr, has filed two motions for a new trial. One of those is sealed.

The acting court that blocked the impeachment proceedings was set in motion by Workman, who then recused herself. It was made up of circuit judges from around the state.

One of those, Circuit Judge Ronald Wilson, was asked to recuse himself, but he went ahead and served on the acting court.

Wilson is also chairman of the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission.

That body named Justice Allen Loughry in its own set of 32 charges relating to his conduct on the Supreme Court.

Separately, the Judicial Investigation Commission issued a conclusion that it had closed ethics complaint cases against justices Beth Walker, Workman and Davis.

The commission was investigating complaints alleging the three justices used state funds to pay for working lunches.

Wilson took the unusual move of issuing a press release to let the public know the justices had been cleared of the ethical questions.

The Senate’s motion filed this week again objects to Wilson’s service on the acting Supreme Court. The lawyers contended due process requires disqualification in cases where a judge has a serious risk of bias.

“This Court’s failure to even address the ‘serious risk’ and due process concerns arising from acting Justice Wilson’s involvement in the Judicial Investigation Commission proceedings constitutes a clear basis to reconsider the decision,” the lawyers wrote.



Petition for Rehearing (Text)





More News

News
As Yeager Airport's Wildlife Patrol Dog turns 7, a new dog comes in to learn from him
The new Border Collie is getting acclimated and receiving training for his soon-to-be role.
March 28, 2024 - 6:30 pm
News
Dunlow Volunteer Fire Department closes
The Dunlow VFD did not have a valid workers compensation insurance policy.
March 28, 2024 - 6:20 pm
News
PEIA examines financial effects of new law meant to ensure local pharmacies get fair reimbursements
Gov. Jim Justice signed Senate Bill 453 into law this week.
March 28, 2024 - 4:11 pm
News
Barbour County woman sentenced after death case sent back to circuit court by Supreme Court
Carli Reed sentenced on voluntary manslaughter conviction.
March 28, 2024 - 4:11 pm