In re: Magisterial District Judge Mark A. Bruno

Summary

This is a concurring opinion addressing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s authority under King’s Bench to order the interim suspension of a magisterial district judge. Justice Saylor agrees that the Court retains that power in extraordinary circumstances but argues that the Court of Judicial Discipline should generally have primacy in judicial suspension and disciplinary matters, and that the Supreme Court should use its supervisory authority more narrowly.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction and power under King’s Bench to direct the interim suspension of jurists in extraordinary circumstances.
2. The exercise of King’s Bench authority to suspend a judge should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, particularly where the matter is constitutionally assigned to the Court of Judicial Discipline.
3. The Supreme Court may use its general supervisory and administrative authority to assign a judicial officer to duties that do not entail presiding over court proceedings, thereby addressing institutional concerns without necessarily imposing an unpaid interim suspension.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania retains King’s Bench jurisdiction and authority to direct the interim suspension of a jurist in extraordinary circumstances.
2. Whether the Court of Judicial Discipline's constitutionally assigned authority over interim suspensions and discipline should limit or take primacy over the Supreme Court's exercise of King’s Bench authority.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should routinely suspend judges upon their indictment on felony charges.
4. Whether the Supreme Court's general supervisory and administrative authority under Article V, Section 10(a) may be used to assign a jurist to duties that do not involve presiding over court proceedings instead of imposing an interim suspension.

Disposition

other