Opinion ID: 1310803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The confidential orders were entered without jurisdiction to do so.

Text: Respondent Justices appointed a special master to investigate alleged leaks of information to the press in violation of two early orders by the Whitehead panel directing that the proceedings before this court in the Whitehead case be kept confidential. We conclude that these orders were invalid because Respondent Justices acted in excess of their jurisdiction when entering them. Respondent Justices have invoked the Administrative and Procedural Rules for the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline (ARJD) as authority for the confidentiality orders. ARJD 5(1) provides: All proceedings must be confidential until there has been a determination of probable cause and a filing of formal statement of charges. ARJD 5(2) provides that confidentiality encompasses all proceedings of the commission and all information and materials, written, recorded or oral, received or developed by the commission in the course of its work and relating to alleged misconduct or disability of a judge. The Whitehead panel concluded that these rules also extended to judicial proceedings before this court after Judge Whitehead petitioned for extraordinary relief. The panel erred. The scope of the ARJD is restricted to the confidentiality of all proceedings before the Nevada commission on judicial discipline as imposed by § 21(5)(a) of article 6 of the constitution of Nevada, ... and the conduct of investigations and hearings by the commission, as imposed by § 21(5)(c) of article 6 of the constitution of Nevada. ARJD 1 (emphases added). This restricted scope is required by the Nevada Constitution, which provides that this court shall make appropriate rules for [t]he confidentiality of all proceedings before the commission, except a decision to censure, retire or remove a justice or judge. Nev. Const. art. 6, § 21(5)(a) (emphasis added). Overlooking the limiting language in this constitutional provision, Respondent Justices decided that the state public policy favoring confidentiality in initial judicial discipline proceedings is so strong that it prevails over any countervailing public policies to keep government open and the public informed, even when a judge avails himself of the traditionally public forum of this court and seeks to have all proceedings against him by the Commission on Judicial Discipline dismissed. This view disregards not only the right and need of the public to know of such an extraordinary dispute in governmental affairs but also the threat that secret judicial proceedings pose to public confidence in this court and the judiciary. NRS 1.090 provides: The sitting of every court of justice shall be public except as otherwise provided by law. The State Constitution and the ARJD provide no authority for confidential proceedings before the supreme court itself, and the Whitehead panel erred in concluding that it had such authority. Furthermore, the confidentiality orders implicate First Amendment concerns. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. Const. amend. I. The Fourteenth Amendment makes this prohibition applicable to state actions as well. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The First Amendment guarantees public access to places traditionally open to the public, such as criminal trials. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 577, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2827, 2829, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). In Richmond, the Supreme Court noted that though the right to attend civil trials was not at issue before it, historically both civil and criminal trials have been presumptively open. Id. at 580 n. 17, 100 S.Ct. at 2829 n. 17. A state may deny this right of public access only if it shows that the denial is necessitated by a compelling government interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 607, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2620, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982). The Whitehead case did not involve a trial; nevertheless, at Judge Whitehead's behest, it became a judicial proceeding which implicated matters of great public concern. A major purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 838, 98 S.Ct. 1535, 1541, 56 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern. Id. at 839, 98 S.Ct. at 1541. Furthermore, open court proceedings assure that proceedings are conducted fairly and discourage perjury, misconduct by participants, and biased decision making. Richmond, 448 U.S. at 569, 100 S.Ct. at 2823. Openness promotes public understanding, confidence, and acceptance of judicial processes and results, while secrecy encourages misunderstanding, distrust, and disrespect for the courts. Id. at 569-73, 100 S.Ct. at 2823-25. Despite their concerns with the potential for unfair actions by the Commission, Respondent Justices have never acknowledged the potential for abuse inherent in their attempt to proceed secretly in the Whitehead case. Despite their concerns with a loss of public confidence in this court, Respondent Justices have paid no regard to the distrust caused by their attempt to proceed secretly, by their intemperate reaction when that attempt was exposed, and by their obsessive preoccupation with avenging themselves against those who informed the press and the public of the case. Respondent Justices' concern with Judge Whitehead's right to confidentiality and with possible harm to the judiciary from the publicizing of frivolous complaints against judges, though legitimate, does not constitute a compelling state interest that overrides the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and press and access to the courts in a case of the highest public concern. The Whitehead panel thus issued its orders of confidentiality without authority and erroneously upheld their validity in later opinions. Furthermore, Respondent Justices' efforts to identify and punish persons who provided information to the press are improper. Citing United States Supreme Court case law, the Whitehead panel stated that a court has authority to issue ancillary orders while considering other questions and to punish as criminal contempt violations of such orders even when it is later determined that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. Whitehead v. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 110 Nev. 128, 136, 906 P.2d 230, 235 (1994). However, the panel overlooked contrary Nevada precedent holding that lack of subject matter jurisdiction renders a judgment void and that a person may not be held in contempt of a void order. State Indus. Ins. System v. Sleeper, 100 Nev. 267, 269, 679 P.2d 1273, 1274 (1984). The Whitehead panel's disregard of this court's precedent and of the application of the doctrine of stare decisis without explanation or comment was improper. Consistent with Sleeper, the Supreme Court of California has stated: In this state it is clearly the law that the violation of an order in excess of the jurisdiction of the issuing court cannot produce a valid judgment of contempt, and that the jurisdiction in question extends beyond mere subject matter or personal jurisdiction to that concept described by us in Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal [17 Cal.2d 280, 109 P.2d 942, 948 (1941)]: Speaking generally, any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory declaration, or rules developed by the courts and followed under the doctrine of stare decisis, are in excess of jurisdiction, [. . . .] In re Berry, 68 Cal.2d 137, 65 Cal.Rptr. 273, 280, 436 P.2d 273, 280 (1968) (some citations omitted). Although the Whitehead panel had subject matter jurisdiction in the Whitehead case, it acted in excess of that jurisdiction under the First Amendment, NRS 1.090, and the ARJD in ordering that the proceedings in the Whitehead case before this court be kept confidential. Therefore, those orders were void, and their violation cannot produce a valid judgment of contempt.