Opinion ID: 2739086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arguments of the AOPC and the PBA

Text: The AOPC responds that the Supreme Court may exercise King’s Bench jurisdiction to issue an order of interim suspension in a situation such as that involving Judge Bruno. According to the AOPC, the Court’s authority is broad and includes superintendency over inferior tribunals and their members. The breadth of authority fits the Court’s responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the Unified Judicial System, against judicial impropriety and even against the appearance of judicial impropriety. The AOPC argues that the 1993 amendment, while creating the Board and the CJD, did not divest the Supreme Court of its powers of superintendency over Pennsylvania courts and its judicial officers. AOPC Brief at 11-13 (quoting Carpentertown, 61 A.2d at 428-29). The PBA offers additional helpful perspective and detail regarding the Court’s King’s Bench jurisdiction. King’s Bench power, the PBA states, was vested in this Court by the Act of May 22, 1722, and has survived enactments and revisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution. PBA Brief at 3-4 (citing PA. CONST. SCHED. art. V, § 1; 42 Pa.C.S. § 502; Carpentertown, 61 A.2d at 429). Today, the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that the Court has “such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.” Id. (citing PA. CONST. art. V, § 2). Aspects of the Court’s King’s Bench authority are recited in the Constitution, at Sections 2 and 10 of Article V; these provisions address the Supreme Court as the “supreme judicial power” and as the “general supervisory and administrative authority.” Moreover, Section 502 of the Judicial Code explicitly codifies that the authority of the Court of King’s Bench has continued in the Supreme Court since 1722. Id. (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 502). The PBA notes that the Court has called upon the King’s Bench authority in [J-59 A-2013] - 20 cases similar to those of Judge Bruno and Judge Solomon. Id. at 5-7 (citing Franciscus; Avellino I; Merlo, supra). The AOPC and the PBA emphasize that the 1993 amendment left Sections 2 and 10 of Article V intact. As the AOPC explains, the 1993 amendment did not “affect, restrict, or suspend sub silentio” the King’s Bench powers of the Court but simply “altered” the mechanism for investigating and adjudicating charges of judicial misconduct. The PBA notes that Article V, Section 18 simply delineates the CJD’s authority within the disciplinary process and does not purport to limit the Court’s authority to supervise the court system, which is a separate matter. PBA Brief at 7-9 (citing In re Merlo, 17 A.3d 869, 871 (Pa. 2011)); accord AOPC Brief at 25 (“[T]here is nothing ‘inherently inconsistent’ between the existence of the supervisory and administrative authority of the Supreme Court and the disciplinary authority of the [Board] and the CJD.”). The PBA offers that the CJD is an inferior tribunal that is part of the Unified Judicial System and, as a result, is under this Court’s supervisory authority. PBA Brief at 7-9 (citing PA. CONST. art. V, § 1); see also AOPC Brief at 29-30 (citing PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(c)(1)-(3) (right to appeal CJD decision to Supreme Court)). Accordingly, the PBA rejects the predicate dichotomy perceived by petitioners between the authority of the Court to act upon conduct resulting in disciplinary action and supervisory intervention. PBA Brief at 10-11 (quoting Merlo, 17 A.3d at 871). The PBA submits that Sections 2 and 10 of Article V must be given effect alongside the 1993 amendment “because the Constitution is an integrated whole.” To give full effect to the Supreme Court’s constitutional supervisory power and its designation as the “supreme judicial power of the Commonwealth” means that the Court has jurisdiction to act under circumstances such as those involving Judge Bruno. Indeed, the AOPC and the PBA note that the Court has already exercised its [J-59 A-2013] - 21 supervisory authority in similar circumstances since the 1993 amendment. AOPC Brief at 14-16 (citing Avellino I, 690 A.2d at 1143; Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jepsen, 787 A.2d 420, 425 (Pa. 2002)); PBA Brief at 11. The PBA adds that the Court “may undertake its own investigation of matters implicating the proper functioning of the judiciary. This is implicit . . . in this Court’s power to exercise its supervisory authority even in the absence of any related proceeding before a lower court . . . [and] a necessary feature of this Court’s King’s Bench power.” PBA Brief at 14 (citing Avellino I, 690 A.2d at 1140 and Carpentertown, 61 A.2d at 429); accord AOPC Brief at 29-30 (citing Friedman v. Corbett, 72 A.3d 255, 256 (Pa. 2013)). The AOPC adds that “[t]he Solomon matter is solidly within the administrative authority of this Court” and is akin to an internal labor dispute or an employment hearing, like the disputes in Avellino I and McFalls. The PBA and the AOPC also dismiss petitioners’ policy concerns. Thus, the PBA argues that the exercise of supervisory power by the Supreme Court does not affect the separate authority of the Board to investigate a jurist’s same conduct pursuant to Article V, Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. PBA Brief at 16-17 (quoting McFalls, 795 A.2d at 373) & 36-37. Moreover, the AOPC notes that the Board’s investigation of jurists is confidential and the Court becomes aware that the CJD is acting only if the jurist waives confidentiality. As a result, the AOPC argues, there is uncertainty whether the Board and the CJD is acting and, accordingly, timely Supreme Court action is generally appropriate. AOPC Brief at 42-44. Furthermore, the hearing before a Court’s master, the AOPC states, comports with due process requirements. The AOPC extends the labor and employment analogy to suggest that a similar standard of due process is required here: notice and an opportunity to be heard; an opportunity to obtain discovery is not required. Id. at 44 [J-59 A-2013] - 22 (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985)). Furthermore, the AOPC suggests that the Court need not guarantee confidentiality of the proceedings before a master because, in a case implicating the Court’s supervisory authority, the public requires transparency. The PBA adds that “the requirements of due process are flexible” and “this Court may fashion appropriate procedures in carrying out its broad supervisory powers.” Indeed, the PBA notes, this Court has already rejected the notion that its administrative and supervisory authority should be exercised by any particular mechanism prescribed by general rule, or that any right to discovery or a jury trial exists. PBA Brief at 14-15 (quoting Avellino I, 690 A.2d at 1140 n.1 & 1142 n.3). The AOPC concludes that the Supreme Court is required to act in cases such as Solomon, “and properly did so within the Court’s inherent supervisory authority.” King’s Bench authority serves in this context “to protect and promote the public confidence in the judicial system, to maintain a high standard of professional ethics and propriety, and to guard and protect the dignity and authority of the [C]ourt, and the safety and protection of the public.” AOPC Brief at 16, 33-34 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Franciscus, 369 A.2d at 1194-95). While the Court has in the past referred jurists to the Board for investigation, the AOPC notes, such an action is not required in every case; “the Supreme Court must retain its constitutional supervisory discretion to act as the supervisory power over the Unified Judicial System as necessary, and on a case by case basis.” Id. at 45-46. The PBA agrees: the Court may elect to defer to the Board for investigation where appropriate, but it is not constitutionally required to do so. PBA Brief at 15 (citing Avellino I, 690 A.2d at 1143 n.6). In Judge Bruno’s case, the AOPC disputes petitioners’ reading of Article V, Section 18(d)(2). According to the AOPC, the two provisions of the Constitution at issue here, Sections 10(a) and 18(d)(2) of Article V, are not in conflict and the Court should [J-59 A-2013] - 23 interpret them to give effect to both. The AOPC claims that Article V, Section 10(a) vests general, broad supervisory and administrative power in the Supreme Court, while Article V, Section 18(d)(2) is restricted by its express terms to disciplinary actions brought within the framework of Section 18. These separate powers available for addressing the same, or similar, circumstance do not create an inherent inconsistency, even though the result may be asymmetric. AOPC Brief at 25 (citing Mohamed v. Dep’t of Transp., 40 A.3d 1186, 1193 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Pa. Turnpike Comm’n v. Sanders & Thomas, Inc., 336 A.2d 609, 614 (Pa. 1975)). The language of Section 18(d)(2), the AOPC states, is plain: the CJD is authorized to enter interim suspension orders and the provision simply does not address whether the Supreme Court may do so as well. The AOPC notes that the word “exclusive,” which the Board and Judge Bruno read into the provision as a necessary buttress for their argument, is absent from Section 18(d). The AOPC also argues that, in light of this plain language, the premise that the CJD’s jurisdiction became exclusive following the 1993 amendment cannot be implied. Section 18(d)(2) did not repeal by implication Section 10(a) because the provisions are neither irreconcilable nor does Section 18(d)(2) cover the whole subject of Section 10(a) so as to invite an interpretation that it was clearly intended as a substitute for, or as an implied repeal of, the earlier provision. In the AOPC’s view, this Court’s prior decisions confirm this interpretation. AOPC Brief at 22-25, 27 (citing In Re: Jud. Conduct Bd. Subpoena No. 96076, 703 A.2d 461, 463 (Pa. 1997) (“JCB Subpoena”); Jepsen; Avellino I; Franciscus, supra). The PBA adds that interim suspension orders are entered by the Court in its supervisory function, to assure the integrity of the judicial system rather than being “meted out as a form of punishment.” PBA Brief at 10 (citing Franciscus, 369 A.2d at [J-59 A-2013] - 24 1195). The PBA notes that the Court acts upon the threat to the smooth functioning of the system posed, for example, by the pendency of misconduct charges. No final decision is made related to the charges because an interim suspension is not the result of investigation or adjudication of misconduct charges. Id. (quoting Merlo, 17 A.3d at 871). Indeed, the PBA suggests that the same conduct that gives rise to the Court’s administrative / supervisory action may also result in disciplinary sanctions. The Court’s action of interim suspension, according to the PBA, does not affect the Board’s independent authority to investigate the same conduct and, in fact, the Court has referred suspended jurists to the Board. Id. at 11-12 (citing McFalls; Merlo, supra). The PBA notes that the judicial conduct at issue here threatens the public’s perception of the judiciary and justifies administrative action, regardless of whether the allegations are ultimately pursued or proven via the Article V, § 18 process. Similarly, the AOPC notes that the Court’s authority to issue interim suspensions is not limited to instances in which a jurist “directly defies authority” within the judicial system. “The fact that some prior cases involved that circumstance does not serve to cabin [the Court’s] supervisory authority.” Indeed, the AOPC explains, the Court has suspended jurists for other reasons, such as when the jurist was indicted for crimes stemming from a fraudulent insurance claim. AOPC Brief at 16 (quoting Merlo, 17 A.3d at 871-72 and citing, e.g., In re Joyce, No. 301 Jud. Admin. Docket 1 (Pa. Aug. 17, 2007)).
On the second issue, the AOPC and the PBA agree that the Court and the CJD have concurrent jurisdiction. The PBA reiterates that the 1993 amendment did not [J-59 A-2013] - 25 revoke or diminish the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers, pursuant to which the Court may enter interim suspension orders. PBA Brief at 16. Moreover, the PBA rejects the suggestion that the non-final and not-appealableof-right nature of CJD interim suspension orders has any bearing on the question of the Court’s authority to act. According to the PBA, a non-final order does not prevent review. The Court’s exercise of supervisory powers, the PBA argues, “is not confined to appellate review of lower court orders”; the Court may intervene and order an interim suspension, independent of the CJD. Id. at 19 (citing, e.g., Pa.R.A.P. 311 (interlocutory orders appealable of right); Pa.R.A.P. 312 (interlocutory appeals by permission); Pa.R.A.P. 313 (collateral order doctrine)); accord AOPC Brief at 38-39 (comparing PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(d)(2) with Pa.R.A.P. 341) (prohibition against taking appeal from interim suspension order is similar to general rule governing appeal from other interlocutory order and does not alter relationship between CJD and Supreme Court). The PBA states that an order from this Court issuing an interim suspension “is outside the ambit of Section 18(d)(2)’s restriction on appellate jurisdiction over orders entered by the CJD.” “A contrary position” impairs the Court’s ability to perform its constitutionally-mandated duties. Id. at 18-19. Finally, the PBA rejects the notion that, in issuing interim suspension orders, this Court is pre-judging the merits of a CJD disciplinary action, even when the disciplinary matter is premised upon the same conduct. The PBA notes that this Court may enter interim suspension orders simply upon reviewing the nature of the charges and the Court’s assessment of their impact upon the public perception of the judiciary, rather than based upon any investigation or adjudication of the pending charges. PBA Brief at 20 (citing Merlo, 17 A.3d at 872); see also AOPC Brief at 36-37. This limited approach does not entail addressing the legal or factual merits of the underlying charges, which [J-59 A-2013] - 26 may be problematic. The PBA notes that the CJD has taken the approach of examining not only the nature of the charges, but also what the CJD deems to be the merits of the charges in deciding whether to issue interim suspensions. The PBA suggests that this approach “risks an inappropriate collateral attack on the validity of th[e criminal] charges” and potentially embarrassing conflicts with the criminal court adjudicating the charges. PBA Brief at 21. The AOPC adds that concurrent jurisdiction is in accord with precedent, as explained in Franciscus, Avellino, and McFalls. Melograne, according to the AOPC, is not to the contrary. In Melograne, the question before the Court was whether the CJD had jurisdiction to discipline a jurist who was no longer on the bench during the pendency of the disciplinary action. The Melograne decision simply did not address whether the CJD’s jurisdiction was “exclusive,” as petitioners claim, and the case is, therefore, inapposite. AOPC Brief at 18 (citing 812 A.2d at 1167 n.2). The AOPC adds that the CJD has jurisdiction to act only after the Board determines that probable cause exists for discipline and files charges; but, the Supreme Court’s broader powers take into consideration the Court’s responsibilities to the judicial system and the necessity for immediate action in some circumstances. Id. at 19 (quoting Franciscus, 369 A.2d at 1193-94).11 11 The PBA also offers five recommendations intended to avoid future jurisdictional conflicts that it views as “counterproductive to a central purpose of the judicial discipline system,” i.e., “to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.” See PBA Brief at 22-25. The recommendations are: 1. That the Supreme Court should allow the CJD to make interim suspension decisions in the first instance following a complaint and motion of the Board. 2. That, if the circumstances require the Supreme Court to enter an interim suspension order, the Court should specify whether the CJD may (continued…) [J-59 A-2013] - 27
With regard to this last issue, the PBA states that the 1993 amendment “did not elevate” the CJD’s authority over that of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, according to the PBA, retains its supervisory power over inferior tribunals, including the CJD. Moreover, the PBA argues that the Court need not decline to exercise jurisdiction here out of deference to the CJD, an argument already rejected in prior cases. PBA Brief at 17 (quoting Franciscus, 369 A.2d at 1194). And, because the Court is the “supreme judicial power in the Commonwealth,” the PBA suggests that CJD orders are necessarily subordinate to and may not conflict with the Supreme Court’s directives, unless the Court’s order expressly allows for subsequent adjudication by the CJD. Similarly, the AOPC argues that the Supreme Court is the highest court of the Commonwealth, vested with “supreme” judicial power; the Court’s orders may not be modified, altered, amended, set aside, or disturbed by an inferior court, such as the CJD. The CJD, according to the AOPC, is a court inferior to the Supreme Court (…continued) act; absent specification, the CJD should not be permitted to enter an inconsistent order. 3. A judicial officer who is the subject of an interim suspension order by the Supreme Court may apply to the Court to vacate or modify the suspension order. 4. The CJD should establish a “fast track” mechanism for addressing interim suspension requests. 5. The Supreme Court should define the scope of the inquiry for the CJD when reviewing a request for an interim suspension order. Inter alia, the CJD’s inquiry should be confined to the nature of the charge and its effect on the public perception of the judiciary. We appreciate the PBA’s thoughtful input and, in many respects, our judgment is guided by these recommendations. [J-59 A-2013] - 28 because the Supreme Court retains the ultimate power to review on appeal the CJD’s decisions. The AOPC states that, while both the Supreme Court and the CJD are capable of determining appropriate discipline, the Court is the final arbiter of the sanction. AOPC Brief at 37-38 (quoting Jepsen, 787 A.2d at 423). The AOPC asserts that the Supreme Court may invoke either its extraordinary jurisdiction, to intervene in an ongoing matter, or its King’s Bench jurisdiction, where no matter is pending before the CJD, to enter interim orders of suspension. When exercising these forms of jurisdiction, the AOPC argues, the decision of the Supreme Court is “preeminent.” AOPC Brief at 40-42. III. The Opinion of the Court of Judicial Discipline As noted, on May 24, 2013, the CJD issued an order of interim suspension with pay in the Bruno matter. The CJD’s opinion in support of the order, as well as the concurring opinion, touched upon the constitutional issues which we address in our Opinion. Indeed, petitioners expressly rely upon a concurring expression in Bruno in fashioning their argument to this Court. The CJD reasoned as follows. Initially, the CJD held that the crimes with which Judge Bruno was charged -- one count of mail fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1349, respectively -- relate to his everyday duties as a judicial officer and thus his continued presence on the bench pending resolution of these charges would have “a possible negative impact on the administration of justice and could possibly harm the public confidence in the judiciary.” In re Bruno, 69 A.3d 780, 782 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2013). The CJD then held that suspension with pay was appropriate. [J-59 A-2013] - 29 As relevant here, the CJD recognized that its order was in tension with this Court’s February 2013 Order. The CJD considered whether the February 2013 Order barred the CJD’s action on the Board’s petition; it rejected the notion for three reasons. First, the CJD said that it issued its order based upon a developed record not available to the Supreme Court at the time that the February 2013 Order issued. Second, the CJD indicated its agreement with the CJD concurring opinion that Section 18(d)(2) of Article V “plainly confer[s] authority to issue orders of interim suspension on th[e CJD],” including under the circumstances of Judge Bruno’s case. The CJD concluded that the Supreme Court recognized the authority of the CJD to issue interim orders of suspension in cases in which the Court had already acted, and that the CJD’s order would control regardless of whether it conflicted with the initial order of the Supreme Court. Id. at 798-99. The concurring opinion represented the views of three members of the CJD who also joined the majority opinion. The concurrence specifically addressed the CJD’s decision to suspend Judge Bruno with pay while this Court’s Order to suspend Judge Bruno without pay was in force. The concurrence opined that the CJD’s authority to issue interim suspensions is exclusive. According to the concurrence, following the 1993 amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Supreme Court was “wrong” to rely on the decision in Franciscus, which interpreted Section 18 as added in 1968, to impose interim suspensions. In the view of the concurrence, the 1968 provision differed in quality from the 1993 amendment because the latter “greatly diminish[ed] the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers.” Id. at 802 (Clement, J., concurring, joined by Cellucci and Mullen, JJ.) (emphasis omitted). The concurrence recounted that, under the 1968 version of Section 18, the Court had authority to impose discipline de novo, while the JIRB had no such authority at all, including to enter interim suspensions. The [J-59 A-2013] - 30 concurrence argued that the 1993 amendment “seriously circumscribed” the Supreme Court’s review of disciplinary matters decided by the CJD and expressly transferred the power to enter interim suspensions to the CJD. “[I]t is quite reasonable to regard Section 18(d)(2) as an express transfer of responsibility for interim suspensions to [the CJD] because [the provision] contains an express diminishment in the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers by expressly providing that the Supreme Court has no authority to review orders of [the CJD] imposing interim suspensions.” Id. (emphasis in original). The concurrence concluded by opining that the drafters of Section 18(d)(2) “specific[ally] and emphatic[ally]” intended the CJD to have exclusive jurisdiction over interim suspensions, an intent that the Court’s opinions since the 1993 amendment have nullified. Id. at 802-03 (citing Avellino I, supra). Moreover, the concurrence argued that there was a conflict between Sections 10(a) and 18(d)(2) of Article V, which, the concurrence believed, requires resolution in accordance with the legislative rules of statutory construction. According to the concurrence, “it is beyond argument” that the people of the Commonwealth, in delegating a power to enter interim suspension orders to the CJD -- orders which may not be directly appealed as of right -- “intended that those orders were not to be overridden and that the [CJD] should be free from interference in performing its duty so assigned.” The concurrence maintained that when the Supreme Court enters interim suspension orders, whether in accord or in conflict with a CJD order in the same matter, Section 18(d)(2) is rendered meaningless. To resolve the conflict, the concurrence stated, Section 18 should be interpreted as the specific provision which controls the inquiry over and above Section 10, the general provision that grants the Supreme Court authority over administrative matters -- just as a statute would be interpreted under the precept governing general and specific provisions. According to the concurrence, the [J-59 A-2013] - 31 Court’s powers under Section 10 do not include “matters of suspension, removal, discipline and other sanctions” because these are addressed by Section 18. The Supreme Court’s power under Section 10, the concurrence opined, is restricted to assignment of judges. The title of Section 10 is “Judicial Administration” which, according to the concurrence, implies that discipline is not among the considerations of the provision. The concurrence further argued that the decisions in Avellino I and McFalls supported its interpretation, insofar as both cases implicated the assignment of jurists rather than discipline. The concurrence also noted that the actions of the Court in Avellino I and McFalls were not “interim” suspensions but temporary suspensions without pay for refusal to take the bench. These scenarios, according to the concurrence, are distinguishable from the circumstances in Franciscus, where the Court entered an interim suspension so as to protect the integrity of the judiciary. The concurrence dismissed the decisions in Avellino I and McFalls as “not hav[ing] the precedential credentials ascribed to them by the Supreme Court” when they were cited to support interim suspension orders by the Court in post-1993 amendment cases. The concurrence also challenged the Supreme Court’s authority to enter interim suspension orders pursuant to the Court’s King’s Bench powers. Thus, the concurrence quoted this Court’s decision in Carpentertown and concluded that the King’s Bench power of superintendence is over lower courts and tribunals, but does not encompass “the behavior of lower court judges.” Id. at 806. In a footnote, the concurrence noted that “the superintendence of the latter [lower court judges] is conferred separately” in Section 18, to the Board and the CJD. Id. at 806 n.13. The concurrence next quoted a report on the state of the law provided to the 1968 Constitutional Convention to support its conclusion that, while the Supreme Court [J-59 A-2013] - 32 may have had authority under King’s Bench and as part of its general supervisory powers to “remove or discipline lower court judges,” the power had not been exercised historically and, in fact, may have been rendered meaningless because the Supreme Court had held that “the express constitutional procedures for removing judges, i.e., impeachment, address, and conviction of a crime, are exclusive.” Id. at 807 (citing Laub at 168-69). Under these circumstances, the Convention created the JIRB which, according to the concurrence, was ill-equipped to address the emergent circumstances in Franciscus. As a result, the Court acted because, in the concurrence’s opinion: “it does not ‘look good’ for a judge so charged [with crimes relating to his official duties as a justice of the peace] to be ‘judging others,’ at least until he should be exonerated. For a fact the public is apt to be scandalized, and any confidence it may have had in the integrity of the judicial system is jeopardized so long as that state of affairs continues.” Id. The concurrence also felt that the JIRB’s authority was inadequate to address the exigencies of the matter. But, the concurrence argued, the CJD is equipped to prevent any delay in entering an interim order; and thus, the Supreme Court’s intervention is no longer necessary. Accordingly, the concurrence concluded that, even if the Court were to decide that the authority of Section 10(a) or of the King’s Bench power is a basis upon which to enter interim suspension orders, such action is not appropriate in light of the 1993 amendment to Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Id. at 808-09. In our analysis below, we will discuss the observations of the CJD majority and concurrence when these themes are made relevant by petitioners’ own arguments, and also where relevant to our explication of the relative roles and powers of the CJD and this Court. [J-59 A-2013] - 33 IV. The Power of the Supreme Court Vis-à-vis the Court of Judicial Discipline12 We granted oral argument to address challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court. Although couched as jurisdictional, the parties’ arguments touch upon the separate notions of “jurisdiction” and “power” of the Court, as evident from the parties’ interchangeable use of the terms. The principles at work are distinct, however: jurisdiction “relates solely to the competency of the particular court or administrative body to determine controversies of the general class to which the case then presented for its consideration belongs.” Conversely, the power or, more aptly, the authority of the Court is its capacity “to order or effect a certain result.” Vine v. Commonwealth, 9 A.3d 1150, 1165 (Pa. 2010); accord PA. CONST. SCHED. art. V, § 1 (“Supreme Court shall exercise all the powers and, until otherwise provided by law, jurisdiction now vested in the present Supreme Court”); PA. CONST. art. V, § 2(a) (addressing Supreme Court’s power) & § 2(c) (addressing Supreme Court’s jurisdiction); 42 Pa.C.S. § 502 (addressing Supreme Court’s general powers) & §§ 721-726 (addressing Supreme Court’s jurisdiction). Insofar as the subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is 12 We preface our discussion by acknowledging the undercurrent of criticism, leveled at our prior decisions by petitioners and the CJD, premised upon the notion that the Court is in the position of passing upon its authority to act. The situation is not as remarkable as the criticism would suggest: courts resolve routinely questions implicating their jurisdiction and their authority to act in cases. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Morales, 80 A.3d 1177 (Pa. 2013) (per curiam); Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 55 A.3d 1056, 1066-67 (Pa. 2012); Board of Revision of Taxes v. City of Philadelphia, 4 A.3d 610, 620 (Pa. 2010); Vine v. Commonwealth, 9 A.3d 1150, 1165-66 (Pa. 2010). Any degree of discomfort that might be present if members of the Court had a personal interest in the ruling is absent where the interest at issue is vested in the Supreme Court itself and is, therefore, institutional -- as here. Cf. Driscoll v. Corbett, 69 A.3d 197, 207 (Pa. 2013). And, as an institution, the Court is not arrogating new powers for itself but is explaining its existing ones. Accordingly, we proceed to address the merits of petitioners’ claims. [J-59 A-2013] - 34 concerned, the presentations dispute whether the Court is competent to decide matters implicating the suspension of jurists for disciplinary or other reasons. Regarding the Court’s power, the presentations disagree on whether the Court has the authority to commence an investigation into the conduct of a jurist, and to order the interim or temporary suspension of a jurist. All Pennsylvania courts derive power or authority, and the attendant jurisdiction over the subject matter, from the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth. PA. CONST. art. V, § 2; 42 Pa.C.S. § 502; see Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 55 A.3d 1056, 1067 (Pa. 2012) (quoting In re Administrative Order No. 1– MD–2003, Appeal of Troutman, 936 A.2d 1, 5 (Pa. 2007)); Housing Auth. of County of Chester v. Pa. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 730 A.2d 935, 941 & n.13 (Pa. 1999). Our decision implicates the interpretation and application of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968, as amended, and of the Judicial Code. Accordingly, the inquiry is subject to de novo and plenary review. Commonwealth v. Cromwell Twp., 32 A.3d 639, 646 (Pa. 2011). As an interpretive matter, the polestar of constitutional analysis undertaken by the Court must be the plain language of the constitutional provisions at issue. A constitutional provision requires unstrained analysis, “a natural reading which avoids contradictions and difficulties in implementation, which completely conforms to the intent of the framers and which reflects the views of the ratifying voter.” Jubelirer v. Rendell, 953 A.2d 514, 528 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth ex rel. Paulinski v. Isaac, 397 A.2d 760, 766 (Pa. 1979). Stated otherwise, the constitutional language controls and “must be interpreted in its popular sense, as understood by the people when they voted on its adoption.” Stilp v. Commonwealth, 905 A.2d 918, 939 (Pa. 2006); Ieropoli v. AC&S Corp., 842 A.2d 919, 925 (Pa. 2004). [J-59 A-2013] - 35 In this case, petitioners in particular have adverted to statutory construction principles in advocating their view regarding what was intended by the 1993 amendment. We acknowledge that the canons of constitutional construction reflected in decisional law often employ the familiar language of statutory construction rules to elucidate ambiguous language, including the notion that a specific provision would prevail over a general principle found elsewhere in the charter. And, while acknowledging that the Court will not delimit the meaning of the plain constitutional words by reference to a supposed intent, we have also referred to statements of the drafters of constitutional provisions to confirm a particular interpretation of the plain language of the Constitution. Finally, when necessary to our explicatory analysis of the plain language, we have addressed decisional law and policy considerations argued by the parties that may have been insightful and persuasive. Indeed, reference to interpretive rules is at times appropriate and helpful. See, e.g., Walsh v. Tate, 282 A.2d 284 (Pa. 1971) (“[W]here a conflict exists between a specific constitutional provision, which is unquestionably applicable to a particular case, and certain general provisions, which, were it not for such conflict, might apply, the specific provision will prevail.”); see also Jubelirer, 953 A.2d at 528 (same). See, e.g., Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901, 952-53 (Pa. 2013) (Opinion Announcing Judgment of Court) (referencing statement of drafter accepted into House Legislative Journal and explicatory questions and answers provided voters in advance of referendum upon amendment at issue); id. at 944 (citing Jubelirer, 953 A.2d at 525 n.12 and Edmunds, 586 A.2d at 895 (addressing decisional law and policy considerations argued by parties)).13 13 This approach finds support in academic commentary concerning how state constitutional interpretation is to be undertaken. Recently, we referenced one such scholarly article penned by our colleague Mr. Justice Saylor, who noted that: “there is some degree of consensus [among courts interpreting state constitutions] that the (continued…) [J-59 A-2013] - 36 But, reliance on interpretive rules derived from statutory construction concepts is tempered by robust countervailing limitations particular to the constitutional arena. Notable among these limitations -- and particularly relevant here -- is the recognition that “the Constitution is an integrated whole” and, as a result, the Court must strive in its interpretation to give concomitant effect to all constitutional provisions. See Jubelirer, 953 A.2d at 528; Sprague v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184, 191 (Pa. 1988); Cavanaugh v. Davis, 440 A.2d 1380, 1381-82 (Pa. 1982). This rule of constitutional interpretation reflects an understanding that our charter is a fundamental document, which, in recognizing citizens’ rights and establishing government, provides essential checks and balances whose complexity is to be neither undervalued nor disregarded. See, e.g., Driscoll v. Corbett, 69 A.3d 197 (Pa. 2013) (interpreting Article V, Section 16(b) vis-à-vis relevant provisions of Declaration of Rights); Robinson Twp., 83 A.3d at 946-50 (placing Article I, Section 27 within constitutional context). Additionally, reliance upon legislative (…continued) overarching task is to determine the intent of voters who ratified the constitution. In furtherance of this aim, courts reference, inter alia, text; history (including ‘constitutional convention debates, the address to the people, [and] the circumstances leading to the adoption of the provision’); structure; underlying values; and interpretations of other states.” Robinson Twp., 83 A.3d at 944 (quoting Thomas G. Saylor, PROPHYLAXIS IN MODERN STATE CONSTITUTIONALISM: NEW JUDICIAL FEDERALISM AND THE ACKNOWLEDGED PROPHYLACTIC RULE, 59 N.Y.U. Annual Survey of Am. L. 283, 290–91 (2003) (footnotes omitted) (focusing on state provisions that have federal counterparts, and in context of prophylactic rules, author observes that, in era of new federalism, there is diversity but also some consensus among state courts in approach to development of constitutional decisional law)); accord Robert F. Williams, THE BRENNAN LECTURE: INTERPRETING STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS UNIQUE LEGAL DOCUMENTS, 27 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 189, 194-95 & 200 (2002) (state constitutions, ratified by electorate, are characterized as “voice of the people,” which invites inquiry into “common understanding” of provision; relevant considerations include constitutional convention debates that reflect collective intent of body, circumstances leading to adoption of provision, and purpose sought to be accomplished). [J-59 A-2013] - 37 history, especially those statements memorializing the intent of individual framers, is particularly suspect in a constitutional context because the emphasis in constitutional construction is upon the intent of the ratifying citizenry. Accord Commonwealth ex rel. MacCallum v. Acker, 162 A. 159, 160 (Pa. 1932). As a practical matter, the ratifying voters can hardly be deemed to have approved a supposed intention that is not fairly encompassed in the language of the provision put before them. Long ago, in Commonwealth v. Balph, 3 A. 220 (Pa. 1886), the Court explained the reasons for exercising restraint in relying on constitutional debates to resolve interpretative disputes: In the consideration and discussion of this section of the [C]onstitution we throw out of view the copious citations which have been furnished us from the debates in the convention. They are of value as showing the views of individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their votes; but they give us no light as to the views of the large majority who did not talk; much less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it safer to construe the [C]onstitution from what appears upon its face, nor do we propose to go beyond the necessities of this case. Other delicate questions may arise in the future upon this section, and we leave them until they are presented. Id. at 229; accord Bowers v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 167 A.2d 480, 487 (Pa. 1961) (relevancy of constitutional debates limited). For these reasons, examination of the purposes and policies underlying constitutional provisions is not “routinely” performed and becomes appropriate “only when a constitutional precept contends with a precept of equal or greater authority. . . . Then it devolves upon the Court to discern which should control the facts presented, by among other things, assessing the purposes and policies underlying each.” In Re: Interbranch Comm’n on Juvenile Justice, 988 A.2d 1269, 1273 (Pa. 2010) (“ICJJ”) (quoting JIRB Subpoena, 517 A.2d at 953). The Pennsylvania Constitution and the Judicial Code do not expressly address questions regarding the [J-59 A-2013] - 38 Court’s jurisdiction and power to act in cases such as that of Judge Bruno. The authority and the respective spheres within which the CJD and the Supreme Court operate are a function of their respective roles -- constitutional and statutory -- within the structure of Pennsylvania’s judiciary. A. The Court of Judicial Discipline In May 1993, the voters approved an amendment to Section 18 of Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which created the Judicial Conduct Board as a prosecutorial body, and the Court of Judicial Discipline as an adjudicatory body. See ICJJ, 988 A.2d at 1273 n.4. Section 18 addresses, among other things, the composition of the CJD. The CJD consists of eight members: three judges, one magisterial district judge, two non-judge attorneys, and two non-lawyer electors. Of these members, four are appointed by the Supreme Court and four are appointed by the Governor, each for a term of four years. Members cannot serve consecutive terms; any additional term can only follow after a year in which the person was not on the CJD. As a result, the CJD is not devised for easy decisional continuity. The members of the CJD are unpaid, entitled only to reimbursement of expenses, and by constitutional command not all are judges, and not all can be lawyers. In essence, it is a court of citizen volunteers, who should be commended and deeply appreciated for their donation of time and talents to the betterment of the cause of justice. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(b)(1)-(3). Section 18 makes clear that the CJD is a court of extremely limited jurisdiction and power, passing upon a single subject matter. The provision authorizes the CJD to review and decide formal disciplinary charges filed by the Board against judicial officers, including magisterial district judges. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(b)-(d); 42 Pa.C.S. § 1604; accord 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 3331-32 (“suspension, removal, discipline and compulsory [J-59 A-2013] - 39 retirement of magisterial district judges” governed by Article V, Section 18). The CJD has the authority to “order removal from office, suspension, censure or other discipline” of jurists. PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(b)(5). The CJD is not the highest authority, even within its sphere: final decisions of the CJD are subject to direct appellate review by the Supreme Court, upon application of the jurist or of the Board.14 See PA. CONST. art. V, §§ 9 & 18(c)(1)-(3); see also In Re: Carney, 79 A.3d 490, 509-10 (Pa. 2013) (reversing CJD’s decision to dismiss Board’s complaint relating to jurist’s conduct in road rage incident, which was held to constitute “disrepute” in violation of Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of Pennsylvania Constitution; remand for proceedings to determine sanction). The CJD has original jurisdiction over actions alleging judicial wrongdoing prosecuted by the Board. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(b)(5). The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the CJD. 42 Pa.C.S. § 725(2); see PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(c)(1). Section 18(b) denominates the CJD a court of record, which is to conduct hearings “in accordance with the principles of due process and the law of evidence” and whose decisions must be in writing and must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(b)(5). Members of the CJD enjoy immunity “from suit for all conduct in the course of their official duties.” PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(b)(6). Section 18(d) demarcates the constitutional bounds of the CJD’s authority. The CJD may act in enumerated circumstances to issue orders involving a jurist subject to disciplinary action. The actions which the CJD may take against a jurist are also 14 The only exception is where a Justice of the Supreme Court is subject to CJD discipline. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(c)(1). An appeal from a disciplinary decision implicating a Justice is subject to review by a special tribunal selected from among judges of the intermediate appellate courts. [J-59 A-2013] - 40 specified; such actions include suspension or removal from office, and forfeiture of judicial office. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(d)(1), (3)-(4). Additionally, the CJD is empowered to order the interim suspension, with or without pay, of any jurist “against whom formal charges have been filed with the [CJD] by the [B]oard or against whom has been filed an indictment or information charging a felony.” PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(d)(2). As an Article V adjudicative body and a “court of record,” the CJD is a part of the Unified Judicial System. The Constitution states that enumerated courts of the Commonwealth and magisterial district judges, in addition to “such other courts as may be provided by law,” compose the Unified Judicial System. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 1. Among such other courts for which “law” provides -- here, the Constitution -- is the CJD. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(b); 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 1601-1606.15 B. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1. Constitutional and Statutory Framework The Unified Judicial System exercises the judicial power of the Commonwealth. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 1. At the apex of the Unified Judicial System is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. PA. CONST. art. V, § 2(a) (Supreme Court is “highest court” of the Commonwealth). In its capacity as the highest court of the Commonwealth, the Supreme Court is vested with important constitutional and statutory powers and responsibilities. The structure and composition of the Court ensure a 15 Parenthetically, other provisions confirm that the CJD is a part of the Unified Judicial System. For example, funding for the CJD is secured as part of the annual budget request by the Supreme Court on behalf of the Judicial Branch to the General Assembly. PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(b)(4); 42 Pa.C.S. § 1603. [J-59 A-2013] - 41 measure of experience, stability and continuity, and place the Court in a position to call upon the broad experience of its members in matters affecting all aspects of the Unified Judicial System, while remaining accountable to the public. The Supreme Court is composed of seven members, all of whom are members of the Pennsylvania bar, who are elected statewide, not appointed (except in cases of intra-term vacancy), and serve ten-year terms. There is no restriction upon consecutive terms of service (excepting age). Following initial contested elections, Justices may obtain successive terms by way of non-partisan, uncontested retention elections, that permit electors to indicate their confidence in the jurist by a yes or no vote. Justices are salaried, with the amount set by the General Assembly, but with a constitutional protection against diminution in salary intended to protect the independence of the judicial branch. See generally Stilp, 905 A.2d 918.16 The Constitution is explicit regarding the breadth of the Court’s authority over the Unified Judicial System. In the Supreme Court “shall be reposed the supreme judicial 16 By way of illustration respecting the stability and continuity of the Court, the Chief Justice is determined by seniority. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 10(d); Pa. R.J.A. No. 706(a). The last six Chief Justices assumed that role with the following years of Court service under their belts: Castille (14); Cappy (13); Zappala (19); Flaherty (17); Nix (12); Roberts (20). Mr. Chief Justice Roberts, the last chief justice elected under the provisions of the Constitution of 1874, was also the last of the 21-year term justices: under that charter, justices served a single 21-year term. Of the Justices currently on the Court, many have over a decade of experience on this Court, and all have been in continuous judicial service for over a decade: Castille (21st year on the Court); Saylor (17th year on the Court, preceded by service on the Superior Court); Eakin (13th year on the Court, preceded by service on the Superior Court); Baer (11th year on the Court); Todd (7th year on the Court, preceded by service on the Superior Court); McCaffery (7th year on the Court, preceded by service on the Superior Court). Mr. Justice Stevens, before his appointment to this Court in 2013, had served on the Superior Court for 16 years, including as President Judge of that Court for two years. In addition, Justices Baer, McCaffery, and Stevens all have experience as trial judges. [J-59 A-2013] - 42 power of the Commonwealth.” PA. CONST. art. V, § 2(a). Moreover, in addition to its judicial power, the Supreme Court has “general supervisory and administrative authority over all the courts and [magisterial district judges] . . . .” PA. CONST. art. V, § 10(a). The Judicial Code helps to implement the primacy of the Supreme Court within the Unified Judicial System. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 501 (derived from PA. CONST. art. V, § 2). The General Assembly has also recognized that the Court has “[a]ll powers necessary or appropriate in aid of its original and appellate jurisdiction which are agreeable to the usages and principles of law” and any powers vested in it by statute, including the Judicial Code. 42 Pa.C.S. § 502. Section 1701 of the Judicial Code states that the Court has general supervisory and administrative authority over the judicial system and may exercise powers enumerated in subsequent provisions “in aid” of that authority. 42 Pa.C.S. § 1701 (derived from PA. CONST. art. V, § 10(a)). The enumerated powers include authority over “all courts and magisterial district judges” and over “personnel of the system.” 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 1723, 1724. Personnel of the system include “judicial officers,” among them magisterial district judges. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 102 (definitions: personnel of the system, judicial officers, judges). As part of its administrative responsibility, the Court oversees the daily operations of the entire Unified Judicial System, which provides a broad perspective on how the various parts of the system operate together to ensure access to justice, justice in fact, and the appearance that justice is being administered even-handedly. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 10 (judicial administration). One aspect of this responsibility is management of judicial personnel. Thus, for example: (1) the Chief Justice, acting upon requests from the AOPC, may assign additional jurists to temporary judicial service on any court; (2) the Court may certify jurists for senior status, and these jurists may be assigned by the Chief Justice as needed; and (3) the Court approves jurists for [J-59 A-2013] - 43 assignment or re-assignment to divisions of the courts of common pleas. See PA. CONST. art. V, §§ 10(a), 16(c); Pa. R.J.A. Nos. 701, 702. Judicial leave is monitored by the Supreme Court, and jurists are required to file reports related to the status of cases submitted to them for adjudication. Pa. R.J.A. Nos. 703, 704. The AOPC records, reviews, and reports to the Supreme Court on matters related to the operation and efficiency of the Unified Judicial System and its component parts; system personnel are expected to cooperate with the AOPC in these respects and any failure to cooperate is referred to the Supreme Court for review. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 10(b); Pa. R.J.A. Nos. 505, 506; 701-704. Another important facet of judicial administration is the authority to devise rules of procedure governing adjudications before inferior tribunals (excepting the CJD). See PA. CONST. art. V, § 10(c). While the CJD is permitted to devise its own rules of procedure, the CJD is nevertheless bound in its substantive task to take general direction from the Supreme Court, as this Court is responsible for the substance of the codes of conduct that govern Pennsylvania jurists, which the CJD enforces, and our interpretation of those codes controls. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 10(c); see also Pa. Code of Jud. Conduct Canon 1 et seq.; Pa. St. Mag. Dist. J. Rule 1 et seq.; Carney, supra. Additionally, the Court regulates the conduct of jurists via the Rules of Judicial Administration. Notably among the Rules of Judicial Administration is the requirement that any jurist who receives notice that s/he is the subject of any federal or state criminal investigation must report the receipt of that notice in writing to the Chief Justice within five days of its receipt. Pa. R.J.A. No. 1921. Moreover, the Court oversees judicial education, whether of judges who are lawtrained or of non-attorney jurists via dedicated courses of training and instruction. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 12 (magisterial district judges “shall be members of the bar of the [J-59 A-2013] - 44 Supreme Court or shall complete a course of training and instruction in the duties of their respective offices and pass an examination prior to assuming office. Such courses and examinations shall be as provided by law.”); 42 Pa.C.S. § 3112 (same); 42 Pa.C.S. § 3113 (subject to approval of Supreme Court, Minor Judiciary Education Board to prescribe subject matter and examination for course of training and instruction required of magisterial district judges and other judges not members of bar); 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 213234 (members, officers, and staff of Minor Judiciary Education Board appointed by, or with authorization of, Supreme Court); 42 Pa.C.S. § 3118 (continuing legal education for magisterial district judges); Pa. St. Mag. Dist. J. Rule Nos. 19-21. And, for all members of the Unified Judicial System, the Court provides training to maintain professional competence under the auspices of the AOPC. Finally, the Court is responsible for aspects of the legal profession involving the members of the judiciary indirectly: thus, we oversee bar admission, continuing legal education of attorneys, and are responsible for the Rules of Professional Conduct that govern lawyers and attorney discipline. See PA. CONST. art. V, § 10(c); see also Pa. Rules of Prof’l Conduct 1.0 et seq. In addition to its general powers of adjudication, supervision and administration, the Supreme Court also has “the power generally to minister justice to all persons and to exercise the powers of the court, as fully and amply, to all intents and purposes, as the justices of the Court of King’s Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer, at Westminster, or any of them, could or might do on May 22, 1722.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 502 (derived from Judiciary Act of May 22, 1722, 1 Smith’s Law 131). The Judicial Code recognizes that these additional powers are vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution of Pennsylvania. Id. The Pennsylvania Constitution confirms that the Supreme Court retains all powers vested in the Court at the time of the 1968 amendments of Article V, amendments that realized significant reform and [J-59 A-2013] - 45 modernization of Pennsylvania’s judicial branch. PA. CONST. SCHED. art. V, § 1.17 The Court has explained that its powers may be continued by statute “so far as they are unimpaired by our constitutions, state and national.” Chase v. Miller, 41 Pa. 403, 411 (Pa. 1862). To aid in the exercise of these powers, the Court has such jurisdiction as “shall be provided by law.” PA. CONST. art. V, § 2(c). Section 721 of the Judicial Code enumerates the types of cases over which the Court has original jurisdiction: habeas corpus, mandamus or prohibition to courts of inferior jurisdiction, and quo warranto as to any officer of statewide jurisdiction. 42 Pa.C.S. § 721. Sections 722 through 725 describe the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Section 726 addresses the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction to take cognizance, sua sponte or upon petition of a party, of any matter pending before an inferior tribunal “involving an issue of immediate public importance.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 726. In addition, the schedule to Article V of the Constitution continues post-ratification the jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court in 1968 -- such as the jurisdiction of the King’s Bench. PA. CONST. SCHED. art. V, § 1; see, e.g., City of Philadelphia v. Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 22, 999 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2010) (Supreme Court exercised King’s Bench jurisdiction to review arbitration award upon writ of certiorari, where right of appeal was statutorily prohibited). 2. King’s Bench Powers Generally Particularly relevant to the dispute sub judice, as the parties recognize, are the powers and jurisdiction of the Court at King’s Bench. In 1968, upon amendment of the 17 The schedule is a part of the Constitution and it is intended that its provisions “have the same force and effect as those contained in the numbered sections of [Article V].” PA. CONST. SCHED. Preamble. [J-59 A-2013] - 46 Constitution and as before, the people positioned the Supreme Court “in the same relation” to all inferior tribunals as the justices of the King’s Bench at Westminster had occupied on May 22, 1722. PA. CONST. SCHED. art. V, § 1; 42 Pa.C.S. § 502; Commonwealth v. Ickhoff, 33 Pa. 80, 80-81 (Pa. 1859); see Stander v. Kelley, 250 A.2d 474, 483 (Pa. 1969) (plurality opinion) (summarily finding no merit to appellants’ contention that Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968 infringed upon King’s Bench powers