Summary
This memorandum opinion and order addresses a sitting judge's motion for a preliminary injunction against judicial conduct officials regarding disciplinary proceedings over her public statements. Applying Sixth Circuit precedent, the court evaluates the plaintiff's facial and as-applied First Amendment challenges to specific rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The court denies the injunction regarding Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B) but grants it in part for Rule 4.1(A)(11), finding a potential First Amendment violation and irreparable harm related to free speech chilling effects.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Rules 1.2, 2.4(B), and 4.1(A)(11) of the Code of Judicial Conduct are facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment
- Whether Rule 4.1(A)(11) is unconstitutional as applied to Judge Dutton (as‑applied challenge)
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction on the merits of her First Amendment claims
Holdings
- The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege a sufficient number of instances to sustain a facial overbreadth challenge and therefore dismissed the facial challenges to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B).
- The court granted the preliminary injunction as‑applied challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(11), finding that its enforcement imposes a substantial burden on the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the preliminary injunction, granting relief only with respect to Rule 4.1(A)(11) as applied, and denying relief on the facial challenges and the as‑applied challenges to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B).
Key quotations
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if the movant carries his or her burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it.” (at 573)
Factual background
Judge Donna Dutton, a Kentucky district judge, was disciplined for violating several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct after remarks made during a motion hearing. She later ran for re‑election, won, and was subsequently sued by the Judicial Conduct Commission for allegedly false statements to the press. Dutton sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Commission from enforcing Rule 4.1(A)(11) of the Code against her.
Procedural history
The district court initially denied the preliminary injunction. The Sixth Circuit vacated that denial and remanded for a full preliminary injunction analysis. On remand, the district court conducted the analysis and issued a partial grant and partial denial.