Supreme Court compromises on Boy Scouts issue
Judges in California who belong to the Boy Scouts may continue
to associate with the group but they may be required to disclose their membership
or even disqualify themselves in particular cases, the Supreme Court announced
last month.
In a highly anticipated order, the court acted on requests
from four county bar associations that had sought a change in the Code of Judicial
Ethics to require judges to disassociate from the Boy Scouts because of its
discriminatory policies toward gay men and boys.
While it did not go that far, the court unanimously agreed
to offer a compromise that even when membership in a particular organization
is permitted under the canons, “the judge still should disqualify himself
or herself in a particular case when doing so would be appropriate.”
Further, the court said, “Even if a judge believes
there is no basis for disqualification, the judge should disclose the membership
to the parties or their lawyers if the judge believes they may consider it relevant
to the question of disqualification.”
The order does not amend the rules but came in the form of
new language to be added to the Commentary to Canon 3E.
“I think it’s an important step forward,”
said Jeff Bleich, president of the Bar Association of San Francisco, one of
the bars that asked the court to eliminate the Boy Scouts’ exemption to
the judicial canon barring judges from associating with groups that practice
“invidious discrimination.”
Although the court didn’t dump the exemption, the new
language “accomplishes largely the same thing,” Bleich said.
The guidelines can be interpreted broadly and are not limited
soley to sexual orientation cases, he added.
Judges in California have long been divided about the propriety
of membership in the Scouts.
|