FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 6, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 14 83 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 39 5- CV-4 -RH-WCH FLORIDA FAMILY POLIC Y COUNCIL, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us THOMAS B. FREEMAN, in hi s of fic ia l capa ci ty as a m em

be r of th e Fl or id a Ju di ci al Qua li fic at io ns Co m

m is si on , PEGGY GEHN , inhe r of fic ia l cap aci ty as a m em

be r of th e Fl or id a Ju di ci al Qual ifi cat io ns Co m m is si on , PAUL L. BACKMAN, inhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a m em be r of th e Fl or id a Co m

m is si on on Ju di ci al Qual ifi cat io ns , DAVID H. Y OUNG, in h is off ic ia l capa ci ty as a m em be r of th e Fl or id a Ju di ci al Qua li fic at io ns Co m

m is si on , MORR IS SILB ERMAN, in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a m em

be r of th e Fl or id a Ju di ci al Qual ifi cat io ns Co m m is si on , et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 6, 2 00 9) Befo re CARNES a ndMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es , andDUBOSE, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Fl or id a Fam il y

Po li cy Co un ci l, In c. is a no np ro fitorg an iz at io n t ha t di st rib ut es qu es ti on na ire s t o ju di ci al can di da te s i n o rd er t o g athe r an d p ub li sh th ei r vi ews on leg al an d p ol it ic al is su es . Flo rid a Fam il y ’s att em pt s t o g athe r jud ic ia l
can di da te s’ vi ews , ho wev er, h av e b eenha m pe redinpa rt b y

Can on 3E(1 ) an d 3E(1 )(f) o f th e Fl or id a Co de of J ud ic ia l Co nduc t. Tho se pro vi si on s ad dr es s si tu at io ns inwhi cha jud ge m us t d is qu al ify himself

be cau se hi s “ im

pa rti al ity m ig ht
reas on ab ly be que st io ne d,” in cl ud in g wh enhe ha s “ m ad e a p ub li c st at em en t tha t co m m it s, o r ap pe ars to co m

m it , th e jud ge with re sp ectto ” a p art ic ul ar p arty , is su e, orco nt ro ve rs y . Can on3E(1 ), 3E(1 )(f). Th e g en eral di squa li fic at io n p ro vi si on in Can on3E(1 ), al on g wi th th e “ co m m it s cl au se ” atCan on 3E(1 )(f), l edso m e Fl or id a jud ic ia l cand id at es no t t o re sp on d t o t he qu es ti on na ire s b ecau se th ey fear edth at

Honora ble Kristi K. DuB ose, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

designation. 2do in g s o wo ul d re qu ire th ei r di squa li fic at io n fr om futur e cas es . Flo rid a Fam il y fil eda co m

pl ai ntass ert in g tha t Ca no n 3 E(1) an d s ub pa rt ( f) u nc on st itut io na ll y in fri ng edit s ri gh t t o re cei ve sp eech un de r th e Fi rs t an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts . The di st ric t co urt d is m is se d t he co m pl ai ntun de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 12 (b )(6 ) be cau se itfou ndno m eri t i n F lo rid a Fam il y ’s con st itut io na l cl ai m s. Th is is Flo rid a Fam il y ’s app eal
. I. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h as ad op te d aCo de of Jud ic ia l Co nduc t t o go ve rnth e act io ns of s tate co urt ju dg es an d c an di da te s fo r jud ic ia l o ffi ce. Can on 3E(1 ) st at es : (1 ) A jud ge sh al l d is qu al ify himself or h ers el f in a pr oc eed in g i n wh ic h t he jud ge ’s im

pa rti al ity m ig htreas on ab ly be que st io ne d, i nc lu di ng bu t n ot li mit edto in st an ces wher e:

. . . (f) the jud ge , whi le a jud ge or acan di da te forjud ic ia l o ffi ce, h as m ad e a p ub li c st at em en t tha t co m m it s, o r ap pe ars to co m

m it , th e jud ge with re sp ectto : (i) pa rti es or c la ss es of p art ie s i n t he pro ceed in g; (ii ) anis su e in th e p ro ceed in g; or (ii i) t he co ntro ve rs y

inth e p ro ceed in g. The Co de de fin es “ im

pa rti al ity ” as th e “ ab se nc e o f bi as or p reju di ce i n fa vo r of , or ag ai ns t, p art ic ul ar p art ie s o r cl as se s o f pa rti es , as wel l as m ai nt ai ni ng anop en m in d i n c on si de rin g i ss ue s tha t m ay co m e b efo re the jud ge .” Fla . Cod e o f Ju d.

3Co nduc t, Defi ni ti on s. Cano n 3 E(1) (f), wh ic h t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt ad op te d

in Jan ua ry

20 06 , cov ers on e are a in whi cha jud ge ’s “ im parti al ity m ig htreas on ab ly be qu es ti on ed .” See In re Am en dm en t t o C od e o f Ju di ci al Co nduc t, 9 18 So . 2d 94 9 (F la . 20 06 ). In a dd it io n t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt, the Ju di ci al Eth ic s Adv is ory Co m m it te e (Eth ic s C omm it te e) an d t he Ju di ci al Qual ifi cat io ns Co m m is si on (JQC ) ha ve rol es inadm in is te rin g t he Co de
. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt es tabl is he d t he Eth ic s C omm it te e “ to ren de r writ te n a dv is ory

op in io ns to in qu iri ng jud ge s co nc ern in g t he pro pr ie ty of
co nt em pl at edjud ic ia l an d n on -jud ic ia l co nduc t.” Pe ti ti on of C omm . onSta nd ard s of Co nduc t fo r Ju dg es , 32 7 S o. 2 d 5 , 5 (Fl a. 19 76 ). The Ethi cs Co m m it te e’s advi so ry op in io ns do no t b in d t he JQC. Id . Howev er, atit s d is cret io n t he JQC
m ay co ns id er re li an ce o n a n a dv is ory op in io n a s ev id en ce o f a jud ge ’s go odfai th effo rt t o c om

pl y with t he Co de . Id. at5– 6. The Flo rid a Co ns ti tu ti onve st s the JQC wi th th e au th or ity to in ve st ig at e an d
reco m m en d t o t he st at e supr em e co urt the di sc ip li ne of ju dg es . Fla. Co ns t. art. 5 , § 12 (a)( 1)
. Acti ng eit he r on it s o wn i ni ti at iv e o r in res po ns e to a co m pl ai nt , an in ve st ig at ory

pa ne l o f th e JQC de te rm in es whet he r th ere i s p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th ata jud ge ha s v io late d t he Can on s. If the re i s p ro babl e cau se , a JQC pa ne l co nduc ts a tr ia l an d s ub m it s i ts fin di ng s an d re co m m en da ti on s t o t he Flo rid a 4Supr em e Co urt. Tha t Co urt the n re vi ews th e JQC ’s evi de nc e, an d wh il e it“ gi ve s

th e fi nd in gs an d re co m

m en da ti on s o f th e JQC gre atweig ht , th e u lt im at e p owe r an d re sp on si bi li ty in m ak in g ade te rm in at io n re st s wi th ” th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Inre An dr ews , 87 5 S o. 2 d 4 41 , 44 2 (F la . 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d)
. Inaneffo rt t o c ol le ctjud ic ia l ca nd id at es ’ vi ews , Flo rid a Fam il y m ai le d a qu es ti on na ire to all jud ic ia l o ffi ce p rimary can di da te s i n F lo rid a in Ju ly 200 6. An
ex pl an at ory

let te r at ta ch edto th e que st io nn ai re st at edth at“ itis un de rs to odth at y ou r res po ns es to th e que st io ns . . . do no t co ns ti tu te an y pl ed ge , pro m is e, or co m m it m en t o r in te nd edto create th e ap pe aran ce o f a p le dg e, pr om is e, or co m m it m en t t o re ach an y

parti cu la r res ul t i n acas e.” The let te r al so urg ed
can di da te s t o s eekanadvi so ry op in io n fr om

th e Eth ic s C omm it te e if

th ey rem ai ne d u nc ert ai n wh ethe r th ey co ul d a ns wer the qu es ti on na ire witho utha vi ng to di squa li fy

th em se lv es fro m

futur e cas es . The qu es ti on na ire in cl ud edth irt eenqu es ti on s o n ava rie ty of to pi cs . The fir stfiv e so li ci te d b io gr ap hi cal in fo rm at io n. Th e si xt h a ndsev en th qu es ti on s as ke d t he can di da te to li stwhi chcurren t ju st ic es on th e Uni te d S tate s Supr em e Co urt an d t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt m os t re fle ct edth e can di da te ’s ownjud ic ia l ph il os op hy. Que st io n e ig htask edth e can di da te whet he r he be li ev edth atth e 5Fl or id a Co ns ti tu ti on reco gn iz es a ri gh t t o s am e-s ex m arri ag e. The fi na l fi ve

qu es ti on s as ke d wh ethe r th e can di da te ag reedwith ju di ci al de ci si on s re gard in g pa ren ta l co ns en t fo r ab orti on s, as si st edsu ic id e, ho m os ex ua l ad op ti on , vo uc he r pr og ram s, an d t he ele m en ts of b ur gl ary. Fo r qu es ti on s ei gh t thr ou gh th irt een , can di da te s co ul d s el ectfro m fiv e res po ns es : “ Agr ee,” “ Dis ag ree,” “ Und eci de d,”

“ Decl in e to res po nd ,” or“ Refu se to res po nd .” On the qu es ti on na ire , nex t t o e ach “ Decl in e to res po nd ” b la nk , was an as te ris k a cco m

pa ni edby a foo tn ot e th atst at ed : Thi s re sp on se in di cat es th atI wou ldan swe r th is qu es ti on bu t b el ie ve th atI am pro hi bi te d fr om

do in g s o b y

Flo rid a Can on s o f Ju di ci al Co nduc t 3 B(1 0) an d 7 A(3 )(a) an d (d )(1 ) . . . . In a dd it io n, I wo ul d an swe r th is qu es ti on , bu t b el ie ve th atif I d idso , th enI wil l b e requi redto recu se m

y se lf a s a ju dg e in any

pro ceed in g c on cern in g th is an swe r on acco un t o f Fl or id a Can on s 3 E(1) an d 3 E(1) (f) . . . . Befo re re sp on di ng to th e que st io nn ai re s ev eral jud ic ia l ca nd id at es fol lo wed th e advi ce i n F lo rid a Fam il y ’s acco m pa nyin g l et te r an d s ou gh t g ui da nc e fro m th e Eth ic s C omm it te e. On Au gu st7, 2 00 6 t he Eth ic s C omm it te e is su edAdv is ory Opi ni on 06 -1 8. Tha t o pi ni onadvi se d ju di ci al can di da te s the y co ul d a ns wer the qu es ti on na ire so lo ng as: (1 ) th e can di da te cle arl y

in di cat es th atth e an swe rs do no t co ns ti tu te a pr om is e th atth e can di da te wil l ru le a cert ai n way in acas e; (2) th e can di da te cle arl y

ackno wled ge s the ob li ga ti on to fol lo w bi nd in g l eg al pr eced en t an ywhe re i t ex is ts ; (3 ) th e can di da te do es no t ap pe ar t o 6en do rs e an y ot he r in di vi du al who is li ke ly to s ta ndforele ct io n t o o r ret en ti oninany

publ ic off

ic e o r an y pl at fo rm of apo li ti cal pa rty; an d (4 ) an y co m m en ta ry on pa stjud ic ia l d eci si on s i s an al yti cal , in fo rm ed , res pe ct fu l, an d d ig ni fie d. Howev er, the advi so ry

op in io n “ cau ti on [ed ] th atth e li ne be twee n ‘an no un ci ng ’
an d ‘pro m is in g’ canbe a th in on e.” The op in io n re m in de d ju di ci al can di da te s tha t with re sp ectto di squa li fic at io n: [T]he ‘ey e o f th e b eh ol de r’ is the pri m ary fo cu s. Des pi te th e fac t a ju di ci al can di da te ’s pro no un cem en ts m ay be co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edsp eech an d in co m pl ia nc e wit h e th ic al can on s, the di sp os it iv e que st io n i s s ti ll whet he r th e in di vi du al ‘ be ho ld er’s’ fear o f pa rti al ity is reas on ab le , reas on ab le ne ss be in g d et erm in edby a neu tra l an d o bjec ti ve st an da rd
. Fi na ll y th e o pi ni on warn edth ata jud ic ia l “ can di da te m us t n otfurni sh an swe rs th at ap pe ar t o b in d t he can di da te if s uc h i ss ue s ar is e o nc e th e can di da te ha s as su m ed jud ic ia l o ffi ce.” Inth e d ay s s urro un di ng th e is su an ce o f Adv is ory Opi ni on06 -1 8, Fl or id a Fam il y rece iv edsi xt y -th ree r es po ns es to it s que st io nn ai re. Fo rty-sev enof t he m co nt ai ne d m os tl y

or e nt ire ly “ Decl in e to res po nd ” an swe rs to qu es ti on s s ix th ro ug h t hi rte en . Fl or id a Fam il y it se lf r es po nd edto Adv is ory Opi ni on 06 -1 8 a nd to th e an swe rs itha d re cei ve d t o t he fir stqu es ti on na ire by sen di ng ou t a n ew on e jus t thr ee d ay s af

te r th e Adv is ory

Opi ni on was i ss ue d.

7The rev is edqu es ti on na ire , li ke th e fi rs t o ne , was s en t t o a ll jud ic ia l

can di da te s. Itwas a cco m pa ni edby an ex pl an at ory let te r st at in g t ha t the Eth ic s Co m m it te e h adrece nt ly relea se d a“ fav or ab le op in io n” reg ard in g t he qu es ti on na ire
. Fl or id a Fam il y in fo rm edth e jud ic ia l ca nd id at es th atitpl anne d t o th ro w ou t al l o f th e res po ns es to it s i ni ti al in qu iry andsubs ti tu te th ei r res po ns es to th e n ew on e. The ne w qu es ti on na ire be ga n wi tha bo ld face di sc la im er tha t s ta te d: By an swe rin g a ndsi gn in g t hi s Qu es ti on na ire , y ouwarran t tha t you un de rs ta ndth at , as ajud ge , y ou r de ci si on s wi ll fol lo w bi nd in g pr eced en ts an d t ha t youran swe rs do no t co ns ti tu te a pr om is e to rul e in a cert ai n way in acas e. Youare fr ee t o o fferfurth er ex pl an at io ns of y ou r an swe rs on th is or i n asep arat e d oc um en t, an d your co m m en ts wil l b e m ad e av ai labl e. Any co m m en ts sh ou ldbe an al yti cal , in fo rm ed , res pe ct fu l, an d d ig ni fie d. Se e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt J ud ic ia l Ethi cs Adv is ory Co m m it te e Opi ni on , No. 0 6- 18 (Aug
. 7, 2 00 6) , pro vi de d wi thth is Ques ti on na ire
. Altho ug h t he ne w qu es ti on na ire co nt ai ne d a ll of t he same qu es ti on s as th e earl ie r on e, th e fo otno te acco m pa nyin g t he “ Decl in e to res po nd ” o pt io n was rev is edto st at e: Thi s re sp on se in di cat es th atI wou ldan swe r th is qu es ti on , bu t b el ie ve th atif I d idso , th enI wou ldbe requi redto recu se m y se lf a s a ju dg e in an y pro ceed in g c on cern in g t hi s an swe r be cau se of F lo rid a Can on s 3E(1 ) an d 3 E(1) (f) . . . . In th is reg ard , m y op in io n i s i nf

orm edby Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt J ud ic ia l Ethi cs Adv is ory Co m m it te e Opi ni on No. 0 6- 18 (Aug . 7, 2 00 6)
. . . .

8Fi fty-th ree ju di ci al can di da te s re tu rn edFlo rid a Fam il y ’s rev is edqu es ti on na ire
.

Twent y -fi ve of tha t n um

be r, ho wev er, ch os e th e “ Decl in e to res po nd ” o pt io n fo r so m e o r al l o f th e que st io ns . Fl or id a Fam il y ’s webs it e u lt im at el y di sp la y edall of t he bi og rap hi cal in fo rm at io n i t re cei ve d i n re sp on se to th e fi rs t fi ve qu es ti on s o f bo th qu es ti on na ire s. W ith re ga rdto th e la steig htqu es ti on s, wh ic h wer e rel at edto jud ic ia l p hi lo so ph y

an d l eg al is su es , Flo rid a Fam il y “ de ci de d n otto rep ort the
res po ns e[s ] in ord er t o a vo idpo te nt ia ll y expo si ng th e can di da te [s ] to requi red di squa li fic at io n o r rec us al .” II . InAug us t 2 00 6 F lo rid a Fam il y fil eda co m

pl ai ntinth e Uni te d S ta te s Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a ag ai ns t the m em be rs of t he JQC
an d t he Flo rid a BarLega l Di vi si on ’s fiv e Ch ie f Dis ci pl in ary Co un se l, wh o e nf or ce th e can on s g en eral ly agai ns t l awy ers who are ju di ci al can di da te s. Flo rid a Fam il y 1 cl ai m edth atCan on 3E(1 ) an d s ub pa rt ( f) are un co ns ti tu ti on al as app li edto it s qu es ti on na ire s b ecau se th ey ch il l ju di ci al can di da te s’ sp eechan d t hu s d en y Flo rid a Rule 4-8.2(b) of

the Rules Regulating the Florida Ba r states: “Alawyer who is a 1 candidate for judicia l office shall comply with the applicable provisions of Florida ’s Code of J udicial Conduct.” We question whethe r the ba r disciplinary

counsel should have been ma de defe ndants in this lawsuit si nce, a s we will explain, the provision of the Canons in question can be violated only

by a sitting judg e. In view of our dispositi on of this appea l we nee d not decide whether the bar disciplinary

counsel we re pr oper pa

rties. 9Fam il y

“ it s ri gh t t o re cei ve an d p ub li sh in fo rm at io n.” The co m pl ai ntals o c la im ed th atCan on3E(1 )(f) i s u nc on st itut io na ll y va gu e an d o ve rb ro adbe cau se it“ do es no t ad equa te ly defi ne it s co m mit s cl au se ” an d “ swe ep s co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct ed
an no un cem en ts of p ers on al vi ews on di sp ut edleg al an d p ol it ic al is su es withi n t he sp he re o f pr oh ib it edsp eech .” Howev er, Fl or id a Fam il y ’s com pl ai ntdi d n otch al le ng e th e co ns ti tu ti on al ity of , or e ve n m en ti on , Fla . Stat. § 38 .10 . Sect io n 3 8.1 0, al on g wi thit s p ro cedur al Ru le of Jud ic ia l Adm in is tra ti on 2.3 30 , gi ve s p art ie s the rig htto m ov e fo r th e di squa li fic at io n o f a jud ge if the pa rty has a reas on ab le fearth athe can no t re cei ve a fai r tr ia l i n fr on t o f th atjud ge . Fla. R. J ud . Adm in . 2.3 30 (b ) (“ Any party , in cl ud in g t he st at e, m ay

m ov e to di squa li fy

th e tr ia l ju dg e as si gn edto th e cas e o n gr ou nd s p ro vi de d b y

rul e, by sta tu te , or b y

th e Co de of J ud ic ia l Co nduc t.”)
. Fl or id a Fam il y ’s com

pl ai ntch al le ng edon ly Cano n 3 E(1) an d s ub part ( f). Fl or id a Fam il y

ask edth e d is tri ctco urt t o p rel im in ari ly enjoi n t he JQC fr om en fo rci ng Can on3E(1 ) an d a ny relat edcan on s u nt il th e co urt co ul d re ach a fi na l de ci si on on th e m eri ts . In s up po rt o f it s m ot io n fo r a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n, Fl or id a Fam il y

subm it te d a n a ffi da vi t fr om Ju dg e Jo hn Sta rg el of F lo rid a’s Ten th Ju di ci al Cir cu it , who ha d c ho se n t he “ Decl in e to res po nd ” o pt io n o n F lo rid a Fam il y ’s sec on d que st io nn ai re. Ju dg e St arg el ’s affi da vi t s ta te d: 10I wou ldha ve an swe redth e que st io nn ai re. Howe ve r, I be li ev e th at

Can on 3E(1 )(f) wo ul d re qu ire m y recu sa l as a jud ge fro m

cas es in vo lv in g t he is su es ad dr es se d o n t he qu es ti on na ire be cau se m y an swe rs mig ht“ ap pe ar t o c omm it .” Lik ewis e, I b el ie ve th atCan on 3E(1 ) wou ldrequi re m

y recu sa l b ecau se m

y an swe rs m ig htcau se m

y im pa rti al ity to be reas on ab ly que st io ne d. Advi so ry Opi ni on 06 -1 8 supp orts m

y un de rs ta nd in g o f th es e can on s . . . . Becau se of t he se pr ov is io ns an d t he ir i nt erp ret at io n, I d idno t an swe r th e que st io nn ai re, bu t ch eck ed“ Decl in e to res po nd ” fo r al l my an swe rs . At the ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e m ot io n fo r a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n the JQC ’s key witn es s was it s ch ai rm an , Ju dg e Ja m es W ol f of Flo rid a’s Fi rs t Di st ric t Co urt o f App eal
. Ju dg e Wolf t es ti fie d t ha t h e was “ no t fa m il ia r with a ny case ” whe re the JQC h adev er at te m pt edto di sc ip li ne a jud ge ba se d o n “ st at em en ts th at a jud ge ha s m ad e o n a n i ss ue .” Howev er, Jud ge W ol f st at edth atif ajud ic ia l
can di da te an swe redFlo rid a Fam il y ’s qu es ti on s ab ou t the rig htto same-sex m arri ag e an d t he pro hi bi ti on of h om os ex ua l ad op ti on , th atjud ge “ arg uabl y ” m us t di squa li fy

hi m se lf f ro m futur e cas es in vo lv in g t ho se is su es . Afte r th e h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Fl or id a Fam il y ha d st an di ng to rai se th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t i ss ue s an d t ha t the y were ri pe . The d is tri ct co urt al so co nc lu de d, h owe ve r, th atFlo rid a Fam il y ha d n otest ab li sh eda li ke li ho odof s uc ces s o n t he m eri ts an d fo r th atreas on de ni edth e m ot io n fo r a pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n.

11Mea nwh il e, th e JQC ha d fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s Fl or id a Fam il y ’s

co m pl ai ntun de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) an d (7 ). The JQC c on te nd ed , am on g o th er thi ng s, th atFlo rid a Fam il y

lac ke d s tand in g, tha t the is su es were n otrip e, an d t ha t the
co m pl ai ntfai le d t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d b ecau se Can on3E(1 ) an d s ub pa rt ( f) d o n otvi ol at e th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. The di stric t co urt d idno t ch an ge it s v ie w th atFlo rid a Fam il y ha d s ta nd in g a ndit s cl ai m s wer e rip e, bu t i t d idag ree wi th th e JQC on th e m eri ts of t he Fir stAm en dm en t i ss ue s an d fo r th atreas on gra nt edth e m ot io n t o d is m is s. Th e co urt re as on edth atCan on 3E(1 ) an d s ub part ( f) s urvi ve stric t s cru ti ny anal y si s b ecau se Flo rid a h as “ a co m pe ll in g i nt eres t i n p ro vi di ng su it ab ly im pa rti al , op enm in de d ju dg es who wil l
ru le ba se d o n t he ev id en ce an d g ov ern in g l aw.” Acco rd in gl y , th e Co de ’s di squa li fic at io n p ro vi si on s wer e co ns ti tu ti on al
. Fl or id a Fam il y

co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly det erm in edth at st an di ng ex is ts an d t ha t i ts cla im s ar e ri pe forrev ie w bu t tha t the co urt erredin ho ld in g t ha t Ca no n 3 E(1) an d s ub pa rt ( f) d o n otvi ol at e th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. II I. W e m us t fi rs t ad dr es s “ th e th res ho ldjuri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on ” o f whe th er Fl or id a Fam il y

ha s s tand in g t o b rin g t hi s l aws ui t. Ele ndv. Ba sh am , 47 1 F .3d 11 99 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ Bo th st an di ng an d ri pe ne ss ori gi na te fro m th e 12Co ns ti tu ti on ’s Arti cl e III r equi rem en t tha t the juri sd ic ti on of t he fed eral co urts be

li mit edto actua l ca se s an d c on tro ve rs ie s.” Id . at 1 20 4– 05 ; s ee al so Bo ch es e v . Townof P on ce In le t, 4 05 F.3d96 4, 9 74 –7 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. Flo rid a Fam il y ’s com

pl ai ntwas d is m is se d fo r fai li ng to st at e a cl ai m , whi chno rm al ly con fin es our rev ie w to th e co m pl ai nt . Landv. Do ll ar, 3 30 U.S. 73 1, 7 35 n.4 , 67 S. Ct. 1 00 9, 1 01 1 n .4 (1 94 7) . Howev er, i n d et erm in in g s ub ject
m at te r juri sd ic ti onwe are p erm it te d t o l oo k at al l o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d, in cl ud in g a ffi da vi ts an d t es ti m on y rel at in g t o am ot io n fo r a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n. Id . (“ Inpa ss in g o n am ot io n t o d is m is s b ecau se th e co m pl ai ntfai ls to st at e a caus e o f act io n, the fact s s etforth inth e co m pl ai ntare as su m edto be tru e an d a ffi da vi ts an d o th er ev id en ce p ro du cedon ap pl ic at io n fo r a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n m ay

no t b e co ns id ered . Butwhen a qu es ti on of t he
. . . Co urt’s juri sd ic ti on is rai se d . . . th e co urt m ay in qu ire by affid av it s o r ot he rwis e, in to th e fact s as th ey

ex is t.” ( ci tati on s o m it te d) ). St an di ng un de r Arti cl e III h as th ree e le m en ts : (1 ) “ th e p la in ti ff m us t h av e su ffer edanin

jury in fa ct

—an in va si on of aleg al ly pro te ct edin te res t wh ic h i s (a )
co nc ret e an d p art ic ul ari zedan d (b ) actua l o r imm in en t, n otco njec tu ral or hypo th et ic al ;” (2) “ th ere m us t b e a caus al co nn ect io n b etweenth e in jury andth e co nduc t co m

pl ai ne d o f—t he in

jury has to be fai rly trace ab le to th e ch al le ng ed

13act io n o f th e d efen da nt , andno t the res ul t o f th e in de pe nd en t ac ti on of s om e th ird

pa rty no t b efo re the co urt; ” an d (3 ) “ itm us t b e li ke ly, as op po se d t o m erel y sp ecu la ti ve , th atth e in

jury w il l b e redres se d b y a fav or ab le de ci si on .” Lujanv. Defen de rs of Wil dl ife , 50 4 U.S. 5 55 , 56 0– 61 , 11 2 S . Ct. 2 13 0, 2 13 6 (1 99 2) (al te rat io ns , cit at io ns , andqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Pit tm anv. Co le , 26 7 F.3 d 1 26 9, 1 28 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (se tt in g fo rth th e sa m e th ree e le m en ts ). The bu rd enis on Flo rid a Fam il y , as the pa rty seek in g t o i nv ok e juri sd ic ti on , to pro du ce fact s s uf fic ie ntto supp ort i ts st an di ng . Pit tm an , 26 7 F .3dat 1 28 2. “ W e rev ie w de
no vo whet he r a p la in ti ff h as st an di ng to bri ng su itinfed eral co urt.” Id
. The re ar e se rio us st an di ng is su es inth is cas e, no t al l o f whi chwe ha ve to de ci de . As we wil l ex pl ai n, ev enif we a ss um e th atFlo rid a Fam il y cancle ar the actua l i nju ry

hu rd le , itstum

bl es on th e redres sabi li ty requ ire m en t. The res ul t i s no st an di ng . A. Fl or id a Fam il y

m us t fi rs t s ho w th atth e ap pl ic at io n o f Can on 3E(1 ) an d
subp art(f) h av e cau se d i t t o s uf fer an i nju ry

infact —a c on cret e, parti cu lariz ed , an d a ctua l o r immin en t i nv as io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edin te res t. See Lujan , 50 4 U.S. at56 0, 1 12 S. Ct. at21 36 . W e rec og ni ze tha t i n F irs t Am en dm en t ch al le ng es , th e actua l i nju ry requi rem en t i s " m os t l oo se ly app li ed " i n o rd er t o

14pr ov id e b ro adpro te ct io n fo r sp eech . Pittm an , 26 7 F .3dat 1 28 3; see als o Whi te 's

Pl ace, In c. v. Gl ov er, 2 22 F.3d13 27 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) ("We wil l n otfor ce a pl ai nt iff to ch oo se be twee n i nt en ti on al ly vio la ti ng a la w to ga in acce ss to jud ic ia l
rev ie w andfor eg oi ng whathe or s he be li ev es to be co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct ed act iv ity ."). Bu t i t s ti ll ex is ts . Fl or id a Fam il y ’s con st itut io na ll y pro te ct edin te res t i s i n re cei vi ng sp eech
. Va. Sta te Bd . of Ph arm acy v. Va. Cit iz en s C on su m er Co un ci l, In c., 42 5 U.S. 7 48 , 75 6, 9 6 S . Ct. 1 81 7, 1 82 3 (1 97 6) (“ Free do m of s pe ech pre supp os es a wil li ng sp eak er. Bu t wh ere asp eak er ex is ts , as i s the cas e h ere, the pro te ct io n a ffo rd edis to th e co m

m un ic at io n, t o i ts so ur ce an d t o i ts reci pi en ts bo th .”); Pit tm an , 26 7 F .3d at12 83 –8 5. Fo r a rec ip ie ntof s pe ech li ke Flo rid a Fam il y to de m on st rat e in

jury in factfor st an di ng pu rp os es , itm

us t s ho w: (1 ) anot he rwis e wil li ng sp eak er wh os e sp eech was c hi ll edby the ch al le ng edreg ul at io n, an d (2 ) th atth e ch il l was ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e as sh own by a cred ib le th reatof p en al ty. See Pi tt m an , 26 7 F.3 d a t 1 28 3– 84
. 2

In Pitt man, the asse rted injury in fac t was diffe rent be cause the Christian Coalition, the 2 information-g athering org anization, was not the only plaintiff. It was joined by judicial candidates who had the ir own direc t standing ba sed on the c hill of their fre edom of spee ch. 267 F.3d at 1283. We did conclude, howe ver, that the “objec tively rea sonable c hill on the First Amendment rights of the Alaba ma judicial ca

ndidates . . . in turn ca

used an injury

in fac t to the Christian Coaliti on plaintiff.” I d. at 1284. 15Fl or id a Fam il y ass ert s tha t J ud ge Sta rg el ’s affi da vi t es tabl is he d t ha t h e was a “ wil li ng sp eak er” wh o wo ul d h av e sp ok enbu t fo r hi s b el ie f th atth e Can on s wou ldrequi re h is di squa li fic at io n i n fu tu re ca se s. See Kan . Ju d. Re v. v . Sto ut , 3 51 9 F .3d11 07 , 11 15 & n .8 (1 0t h C ir. 2 00 8) (ho ld in g t ha t a ju di ci al can di da te who st at edth athe wou ldha ve an swe redth e que st io nn ai re “bu t fo r th e li m it at io ns im po se d b y th e Can on s” was awil li ng sp eak er). Fl or id a Fam il y

furth er ar gu es th atJu dg e St arg el ’s sel f-ce ns or sh ip — the ch il le d s pe ech— was anob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e res po ns e to a cred ib le th reatof a pe na lty . See ACLU v. Fl a. Bar, 9 99 F.2d14 86 , 14 92 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (n ot in g t ha t

“ th e li ke li ho odof d is ci pl in ary act io n b y th e Baran d t he JQC i s anim po rta nt fact or ” in de te rm in in g wh ethe r se lf- cen so rs hi p i s o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e). The arg um en t i s tha t i t was reas on ab le forJu dg e St arg el to he si ta te to res po ndto th e qu es ti on na ire be cau se th e Eth ic s C omm it te e’s advi so ry op in io n was equi vo cal an d di d n otsi gn ifi can tl y

les se n t he po ss ib il ity

th atan swe rin g F lo rid a Fam il y ’s qu es ti on na ire co ul d l eadto a vi ol at io n o f th e Can on s. Th e Ch ai rm anof t he pr os ecu ti ng bo dy, the JQC, t es ti fie d t ha t h e b el ie ve d ans weri ng cert ai n que st io ns

Florida Family also contends that the othe r judicial ca ndidates who mar

ked “D ecline to 3 respond” and ther eby

adopted its footnote about Canon 3( E)(1) are also “willingspeake rs.” B ut see Pa. F am. Inst., Inc. v. B lack, 489 F .3d 156, 167–68 (3d Cir. 2007); Ind. Right to L ife, Inc. v. Shepard, 507 F .3d 545, 550 (7th Cir. 2007). 16co ul d l eadto di sc ip li na ry act io n b y th e JQC if th e jud ge refu se d t o d is qu al ify hi m se lf f ro m futur e cas es in vo lv in g t he is su es co nt ai ne d i n t he qu es ti on na ire . See id . at 1 48 9 (n ot in g t ha t the JQC’s re fu sa l t o s ay whet he r itwou ldpro se cu te a jud ic ia l cand id at e fo r certa in sp eech , inli gh t o f co nf li ct in g o th er au th or ity , weig he d i n fa vo r of

th e can di da te ’s sel f-ce ns or sh ip be in g o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e). Mo reo ve r, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s o nl y rul in g o n l an gu ag e si m il ar t o t ha t i n Can on3E(1 ) up he ldit , alb ei t i n a n a s- ap pl ie d c ha ll en ge ina cas e d is ti ng ui sh ab le
on it s fa ct s. See In r e Kin se y , 84 2 S o. 2 d 7 7, 8 5– 88 (Fl a. 20 03 ) (h ol di ng th ata jud ic ia l cand id at e who ha d p ro m is edfav or ab le tre atm en t fo r po li ce an d v ic ti m s ov er cr im in al de fen da nt s i n h er co urtro om ha d v io la te d t he Can on s an d was no t pr ot ect edfro m

di sc ip li na ry

act io n b y th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t). The de fen da nt s re sp on d, h owe ve r, th atJu dg e St arg el ’s fear, ev enif
reas on ab le , is no t a f

ear o f a pe na lt

y , bu t m erel y

a fear of d is qu al ifi cat io n. Aft er al l, u nl ik e th e ACLU an d P ittm ancas es , whi chin vo lv edsi m pl e b an s o n s pe ech , in th is cas e th e jud ge s ar e fre e to an swe r th e que st io nn ai re. The y wou ldvi ol at e th e Can on s o nl y

by refus in g t o d is qu al ify the m se lv es infutur e cas es wher e, be cau se of th e an swe rs th ey

ga ve to th e que st io nn ai re, the ir “ im pa rti al ity mig htreas on ab ly be qu es ti on ed .” In the ory , a rat io na l ju dg e (wh ic h i s re du nd an t, we h op e) wi ll al way s ch oo se to di squa li fy hi m se lf r athe r th anris ki ng di sc ip li ne forvi ol at in g a

17can on of ju di ci al eth ic s. Th e d efen da nt s ar gu e th atth is m ean s ju dg es wil l n otface

anactua l pe na lt

y , andso th ere i s n oton e th ey canreas on ab ly fear. The be stres po ns e to th is arg um en t i s tha t the sp ect er o f di squa li fic at io n it se lf is a pe na lty

forst an di ng pu rp os es un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. At fi rs t gl an ce, fo rceddi squa li fic at io n d oe s n otap pe ar t o b e a p en al ty. Afte r al l di squa li fic at io n fr om

de ci di ng a cas e d oe s n otaffe cta jud ge ’s tenur e, sa lary , he al th be ne fit s, o r park in g s pa ce. Yet t he re i s a n on -fri vo lo us arg um en t tha t, i n l ig htof t he esp eci al ly “ lo os e”
na tu re o f th e in

jury in fa ctpro ng inFir stAm en dm en t ca se s, Pi tt m an , 26 7 F .3dat 12 83 , for ci ng a jud ge to di squa li fy hi m se lf f ro m hi gh -p ro fil e, in te res ti ng cas es is a pe na lty init se lf. Se e Perry

v. Si nd erm an n, 4 08 U.S. 59 3, 5 97 , 92 S. Ct. 2 69 4, 26 97 (19 72 ) (h ol di ng th atth e lo ss of ano n- te nu redgo ve rn m en t jo b was a pe na lty — anun acce pt ab le bu rd enon sp eech th atvi ol at edth e Fi rs t Am en dm en t); Ju st ic e Fel ix Fran kf

urte r, So m e Obs erv at io ns onth e Natur e o f th e Ju di ci al Pro ces s of th e Supr em e Co urt, 9 8 P ro c. of th e Am . Phi l. So c. 23 3, 2 38 (19 54 ) (“ [A] j ud ge worthhi s s al t i s i n t he gri p o f hi s fu nc ti on .”); Lett er fro m Ju st ic e Oli ve r W en de ll Hol m es , Jr. t o Lad y

Cas tl et own (Feb . 11 , 18 97 ) in Sh el do n M . Nov ic k, Ho no rab le Ju st ic e: The Li fe o f Oli ve r W en de ll Hol m es 21 5 (Lit tl e, Bro wn & Co m pa ny 19 89 )

18(“ I sh ou ldli ke to de ci de ev ery cas e – an d wri te ev ery jud gm en t o f th e co urt, b ut I’m afra idth e b oys wou ldn’t s ee i t.”)
. It i s ce rta in ly pos si bl e th ata jud ge inth e g rip of h is fun ct io n wo ul d wan t t o pa rti ci pa te inth e d eci si on of c as es in vo lv in g abo rti on rig ht s, as si st edsu ic id e, ho m os ex ua l ad op ti on , andvo uc he r pr og ram s. Su cha jud ge wou ldbe rel uc ta ntto ab an do n h is ch an ce t o p art ic ip at e in su chcas es by ans weri ng a qu es ti on na ire
. Ju dg e St arg el ev id en tl y

was. Fl or id a Fam il y

m us t s ho w th atjud ic ia l d is qu al ifi cat io n i s a p en al ty for st an di ng pu rp os es un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. If i t ca nn ot , andth e o nl y pe na lty is di sc ip li na ry

san ct io ns fora refu sa l t o d is qu al ify, the n ajud ge ’s fear o f pe na lty is
no t o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e. The fe ar i s n otob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e b ecau se it de pe nd s o n s pe cu la ti on an d c on jectu re tha t i ns te adof d is qu al ifyin g h im se lf wh ere th e can on s re qu ire hi m

to do so , th e jud ge wil l re fu se an d fa ce d is ci pl in e. See Lujan , 50 4 U.S. at56 0– 61 , 11 2 S . Ct. at21 36 . So i f di squa li fic at io n i s n otit se lf a pe na lty , Flo rid a Fam il y

can no t s ho w an a ctua l i nju ry . W e n eedno t d eci de th is qu es ti on of a ctua l i nju ry , ho wev er, b ecau se Flo rid a Fam il y lo se s the st an di ng war o n t he redres sabi li ty bat tl e.

19B.

Fl or id a Fam il y

m us t s ho w “ a cau sa l co nn ect io n” be twee n t he ap pl ic at io n o f th e ch al le ng edCan on s an d t he cla im edch il l o n the jud ic ia l ca nd id at es ’ free do m of sp eech , Elen d, 4 71 F.3dat 1 20 6, an d t ha t i t i s “ li ke ly, as op po se d t o m erel y sp ecu la ti ve , th atth e in

jury w il l b e redres se d b y a fav or ab le de ci si on .” Lujan , 50 4 U.S. at 5 60 –6 1, 1 12 S. Ct. at21 36 (ci ta ti onan d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; Vt . Age nc y of Na t. Re s. v . Uni te d S ta te s ex rel . Ste ve ns , 52 9 U.S. 7 65 , 77 1, 1 20 S. Ct. 18 58 , 18 61 –6 2 (2 00 0) (requi rin g “ a ‘sub st an ti al li ke li ho od ’ th atth e reque st ed rel ie f wil l re m edy

th e al le ge d i nju ry

infact ”). Fl or id a Fam il y is see ki ng a de ci si on th atCan on3E(1 ) an d s ub part ( f) are eit he r fac ia ll y un co ns ti tu ti on al or un co ns ti tu ti on al as app li edto jud ic ia l ca nd id at es who an swe r it s que st io nn ai re.
The de fen da nt s ar gu e th atap artfro m th e can on s, Fl a. St at . § 3 8.1 0 a ndRu le of Ju di ci al Adm in is tra ti on 2.3 30 inco m bi na ti on wil l l eadto th e sa m e res ul t tha t th e th reatof a n a ct io n b y th e JQC wil l, wh ic h i s d is qu al ifi cat io n. Se ct io n 3 8.1 0 gi ve s p art ie s the rig htto m ov e to di squa li fy a jud ge when th e p arty

fear s tha t “ he
orsh e wil l n otrece iv e a fai r tr ia l . . . onacco un t o f th e p reju di ce o f th e jud ge of th atco urt ag ai ns t the ap pl ic an t o r in fav orof t he adve rs e p arty .” Fla . Sta t. § 38 .10
. Rul e o f Ju di ci al Adm in is tra ti on 2.3 30 sp eci fie s tha t a m ot io n t o d is qu al ify m us t 20sh ow tha t “ th e p arty fear s tha t h e o r sh e wil l n otrece iv e a fai r tr ia l o r he ari ng be cau se of s pe ci fic al ly des cri be d p reju di ce o r bi as of t he jud ge .” Fla . R. Ju d. Adm in . 2.3 30 . If th e jud ge de ni es a m ot io n t o d is qu al ify bro ug htun de r § 3 8.1 0 th e m ov an t h as th e ri gh t t o app eal . Ly nc h v . Sta te , __

_ S o. 2 d _

__ , Nos . SC0 6- 22 33 , SC0 7- 12 46 , 20 08 W L 48 09 78 3, at*2 6 (F la . Nov . 6, 2 00 8) . As th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y

he ld : “ A m ot io n t o d is qu al ify is g ov ern edsubs ta nt iv el y by sect io n 3 8.1 0, Fl or id a St atut es , andpro cedur al ly by Flo rid a Ru le of J ud ic ia l Adm in is tra ti on 2.3 30 .” Id . The m ot io n t o d is qu al ify in Lynchcit ed§ 3 8.1 0 a nd Ru le 2.3 30 , as wel l as Can on 3E(1 ). Id. at*4
. Ju dg e Wolf, the ch ai rm anof t he JQC, t es ti fie d i n t hi s ca se th at“ th e g ro un ds fo r rec us al un de r § 3 8.1 0 and[Can on ] 3E wo ul d app ear t o b e rel at iv e—wo ul d ap pe ar t o b e th e sa m e, sa m e st an da rd s.” He ga ve hi s o pi ni on th ata jud ge who im pr op erl y refu se d t o d is qu al ify himself aft er re cei vi ng a § 3 8.1 0 m ot io n t o d o s o

“ wou ldbe rev ers edinth e ap pe ll at e co urts ,” al th ou gh fai lu re t o d is qu al ify mig ht

“ no t co ns ti tu te a vi ol at io n o f th e Co de , whi chwe wou ldpu rs ue .” Ju dg e Wolf te st ifi ed , ho wev er, tha t h e co ul d n ot“ co nc ei ve of a ny situa ti on wher e so m ethi ng wou ldbe a vi ol at io n o f th e can on [3E( 1) ] an d wo ul d n otals o b e a v io la ti on of 38 .10 .”

21The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h as als o h el d, i n e ffec t, tha t § 38 .10 an d t he

Can on s re qu ire th e sa m e th in g. Se e Liv in gs to n v . Sta te , 44 1 S o. 2 d 1 08 3, 1 08 6 (Fl a. 19 83 ). In Li vi ng st on th e co urt ci te d t he Can on ’s requi rem en t tha t a ju dg e di squa li fy

hi m se lf wh enhi s “ im

pa rti al ity m ig htreas on ab ly be que st io ne d” an d
co nc lu de d t ha t i t was “ to ta ll y co ns is te nt ” wit h F lo rid a cas e la w app lying § 3 8.1 0. Id . Bot h re qu ire di squa li fic at io n wh ena pa rty can s ho w “ a wel l g ro un de d fe ar tha t he wil l n otrece iv e a fai r tr ia l atth e h an ds of t he jud ge .” Id . (qu ot in g S ta te ex rel
. Bro wn v . Dewell , 17 9 S o. 6 95 , 69 7– 98 (Fl a. 19 38 )); see als o B erry v. Berry, 765 So . 2d85 5, 8 57 (Fl a. 5t h DCA 2 00 0) (qu ot in g C an on 3E(1 ) whe n d es cri bi ng th e st an da rdforgrant in g am ot io n u nd er § 38 .10 ). W e are , of c ou rs e, bo un d t o fo ll ow Fl or id a ap pe ll at e co urt d eci si on s i nt erp ret in g t ha t s ta te ’s law. Bl ue Cro ss & Bl ue Sh ie ldof Al a., In c. v. Ni el se n, 1 16 F.3d14 06 , 14 13 (11 th Cir .19 97 ) (“ The fin al arb it er o f st at e la w is th e st at e supr em e co urt, wh ic h i s an othe r way of s ay in g t ha t Alab am a la w is whatth e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt s ay s i t i s.”) ; Si lv erb erg v. Pai ne , W eb be r, Ja ck so n & Curti s, In c., 71 0 F .2d67 8, 6 90 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (“ A fed eral co urt ap pl y in g s ta te law i s b ou ndto adhe re t o d eci si on s o f th e st at e's in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co urts ab se ntso m e p ers ua si ve in di cat io n tha t the st at e's hi gh es t co urt wo ul d d eci de th e is su e o th erwi se .”).

22So th ere a re two ways th ata jud ge who an swe rs Flo rid a Fam il y ’s

qu es ti on na ire canbe di squa li fie d fr om de ci di ng a cas e as a res ul t. Tho se two way s ar e se pa rat e ro ut es to th e sa m e d es ti na ti on , andth ey sh are t he same sta nd ard
. Can on3E(1 ), ba ck edby the th reatof adi sc ip li na ry pro ceed in g, re qu ire s a ju dg e to di squa li fy

hi m se lf i f hi s “ im

pa rti al ity m ig htreas on ab ly be que st io ne d.” Fla . Sta t. § 3 8.1 0, s up pl em en te d b y Ru le 2.3 30 , all ows a pa rty to h av e a jud ge di squa li fie d fo r th e sa m e rea so n. No th in g afed eral co urt co ul d d o o r sa y ab ou t the ch al le ng ed
can on wou ldalt er wh atth e st at e co urts co ul d d o u nd er the st atut e. Ther e are two reas on s. Fi rs t, i n t hi s l aws ui t Fl or id a Fam il y ha s o nl y ch al le ng edth e can on , no t the st atut e. Its th irt een -p ag e co m pl ai ntne ve r m en ti on ed§ 3 8.1 0 o r Ru le 2.3 30 . The di st ric t co urt d idno t m en ti on § 3 8.1 0 e ithe r, pr ob ab ly becau se Flo rid a Fam il y di d
no t. Eve n o n app eal Flo rid a Fam il y di d n otm en ti on § 3 8.1 0 o r Ru le 2.3 30 un ti l i t was for cedby the de fen dant s’ arg um en t t o a dd res s tho se pro vi si on s i n i ts rep ly br ie f. Seco nd , itis do ub tfu l tha t Fl or id a Fam il y co uld ha ve ob ta in edany rel ie f ag ai ns t the th reatof d is qu al ifi cat io n t ha t § 38 .10 po se s, ev enif i t h adso ug htto do
so . Can on 3E i s en fo rcedby the JQC, wh ic h h as th e au th or ity to bri ng di sc ip li na ry

ch arg es ag ai ns t a ju dg e. Thatis why Fl or id a Fam il y ’s com pl ai nt 23se ek s d ecl arat ory an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f ag ai ns t the m em be rs of t he JQC. Ex Pa rte You ng , 20 9 U.S. 1 23 , 28 S. Ct. 4 41 (19 08 ); S co ttv. Taylor, 4 05 F.3d12 51 , 12 55 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (no ti ng th atun de r You ng , st at e o ffi ci al s m ay be en joi ne d i n t he ir of fic ia l capa ci ty from

en fo rci ng un co ns ti tu ti on al laws witho utrun ni ng afo ul of st at e so ve rei gn imm

un ity ). An i nju nc ti on ag ai ns t the m em be rs of t he JQC wo ul d pr ot ectst at e jud ge s fr om

di sc ip li ne un de r Can on 3E(1 ) an d s ub pa rt ( f). Sect io n 3 8.1 0, b y

co nt ras t, i s n oten fo rcedby spe ci fic st at e o ffi ci al s wh o canbe na m edas d efen da nt s i n alaws ui t an d e njo in edfro m act in g i f th e su itis
su cces sf ul . Ins te ad , itwou ldbe in vo ke d b y pa rti es infutur e st at e co urt l it ig at io n an d e nf or cedby the st at e co urts when th e im pa rti al ity is su e is rai se d. Be cau se th ere i s n o way to d et erm in e th e id en ti ty of th e fu tu re p art ie s wh o wi ll rai se th e is su e, th ere i s n o o ne who canbe en joi ne d. No r can th e d is tri ctco urt en joi n t he st at e co urts th atwil l d eci de th e is su e und er § 38 .10 when itis bro ug htup . See Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act, 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 83 ; At l. Co as t Li ne R.R. Co . v. Bh d. o f Loc om ot iv e Eng ’rs, 39 8 U.S. 2 81 , 29 4, 9 0 S . Ct. 1 73 9, 1 74 7 (1 97 0) (“ [A] feder al
co urt d oe s n otha ve in he ren t p owe r to ig no re the li m it at io n o f § 2 28 3 a ndto en joi n st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs m erel y be cau se th os e p ro ceed in gs in te rfer e wit h a pr ot ect edfed eral rig ht
. . . . ”). Thu s, the re wo ul d b e n o d efen da ntforFlo rid a

24Fam il y

to su e inord er t o o bt ai n ajud gm en t tha t § 38 .10 was u nc on st itut io na l, an d th ere wo ul d b e n o way for a d is tri ctco urt t o e ffec tu at e su cha jud gm en t. Anythi ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt o r th is Co urt s ay s ab ou t the co ns ti tu ti on al ity of th e co m m on st an da rdun de rlyin g t he can on an d s tatu te wou ldno t b in d F lo rid a co urts ap pl y in g the st atut e. Even if we wer e to ho ldth atth e st an da rdco m m on to bo th is un co ns ti tu ti on al , th e Fl or id a co urts wou ldbe free to reac h t he op po si te co nc lu si on an d d eci de m ot io ns to di squa li fy inacco rdwith t he ir o wn v ie ws. See Ariz on an s fo r Offi ci al Eng . v. Ari zo na , 52 0 U.S. 4 3, 5 8 n .11 , 11 7 S . Ct. 1 05 5, 10 64 n.1 1 (1 99 7) (th e “ Supr em acy Clau se do es no t re qu ire st at e co urts to fol lo w ru li ng s b y

fed eral co urts of app eal s o n que st io ns of f ed eral law.” ( ci ti ng Lockha rt v. Fr etwell , 50 6 U.S. 3 64 , 37 5– 76 , 11 3 S . Ct. 8 38 , 84 5– 46 (19 93 ) (Th om as , J.,
co nc urrin g) ); Gl as sr ot h v . Mo or e, 33 5 F .3d12 82 , 13 02 n.6 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )). Thi s m ean s tha t g ran ti ng Flo rid a Fam il y th e rel ie f itsee ks ag ai ns t the
en fo rcem en t o f Can on 3E(1 ) an d s ub pa rt ( f) wil l d o n ot hi ng to li ft the ch il l tha t pr ev en ts Ju dg e St arg el or any oth er jud ge fro m res po nd in g t o t he qu es ti on na ire be cau se itdo es no th in g t o re m ov e th e as se rte d p en al ty. The ch il l wi ndfro m th at as se rte d p en al ty w il l s ti ll bl ow i n fr om § 3 8.1 0. Di squa li fic at io n i s di squa li fic at io n n o m at te r ho w itis en fo rced . If di squa li fic at io n i s the actua l in jury, as Flo rid a Fam il y

arg ue s, the rel ie f itsee ks inth is laws ui t wo ul d n ot

25redres s tha t i njury . W e ex pr es s n o v ie w onth e m eri ts of F lo rid a Fam il y ’s

co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en t b utde ci de on ly tha t, as th e p un chli ne go es , “ y oucan ’t get th ere f ro m he re.” IV. Bec au se Flo rid a Fam il y ’s cla im s ar e n otredres sabl e, th e d is tri ctco urt la ck edjuri sd ic ti on to de ci de th e m eri ts of i ts cla im s. We vaca te th e d is tri ctco urt’s
or de r of di sm is sa l o n t he m eri ts an d re m an d wi th in st ru ct io ns foritto di sm is s the
cas e fo r la ckof s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . VACATED an d REMANDED.

26