Court Opinion

ID: 9634357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:09:16.142767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:21.856493
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
dissenting.
I must strongly dissent to this Court’s denial of the application of Robert B. Surrick for leave to file a petition relating to a matter pending before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board. Initially, it must be emphasized that the request being considered merely seeks the right to file a Removal Petition with this Court either under seal or in the alternative without placing the matter under seal. Without any information before us upon which to assess the merits supporting the Petition for Removal, a majority of this Court by its ruling has flagrantly disregarded the constitutional mandate of Article 1, § 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution 1 which provides access to all courts of this Commonwealth and thereby abrogated Mr. Surrick’s right to due process of law afforded him under the Fourteenth *30Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.2 See Boyle v. O'Bannon, 500 Pa. 495, 458 A.2d 183 (1983). Moreover, the participation of Mr. Justice Larsen in the deliberations and decision in this matter, over objection, represents a deliberate and callous disregard of constitutional mandate.3
The circumstances surrounding this decision were that Robert B. Surrick, through his counsel, James Eiseman and Robert J. Hoelscher for the firm of Drinker, Biddle and Reath, obtained an order from Justice McDermott which allowed him to file the removal petition under seal. The parties apparently thought it necessary, in view of the rule of confidentiality required by Article 5, Section 18(h)4 and Section 3334 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 3334,5 to file *31the petition under seal apparently because certain of the allegations and exhibits were protected by the confidentiality rule relating to a pending matter before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board. The filing of the petition was refused at the direction of the Chief Justice and a telephone conference was scheduled and held with all Justices participating. The majority concluded, without any information as to the substance or nature of the complaint, that the petitioner would be foreclosed from any consideration.
At the outset of the Court’s deliberation on this subject, objection was made to the participation of Mr. Justice Larsen. The basis of that objection is Article 5, Section 18(i) of the Pennsylvania Constitution which prohibits, without qualification, a justice from participating “in any proceeding involving his suspension, removal, discipline or compulsory retirement.” It was argued in support of the refusal of Mr. Justice Larsen to recuse himself that it was not apparent the matter under consideration was related to the charges currently pending before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board against Justice Larsen. In view of all of the information that has been made public through the media and through prior applications to this Court, it is ludicrous to suggest that it was not absolutely obvious that the Petition for Removal was a request in connection with the Larsen inquiry.
Moreover, as to the decision of the majority, we merely need to cite this Court’s recent decision in Boyle v. O’Bannon, supra, wherein in an opinion authored by Justice Larsen, a majority of the Court agreed with the language quoted at 500 Pa. page 185, 458 A.2d 183:
“ ‘For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: “parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard...” Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall 223, 233, 17 L.Ed. 531, 534’ [(1864)].’ *32Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983 [32 L.Ed.2d 556] (1972).”
Although at that time I did not believe those principles were applicable to the case then before the Court,6 its applicability here is unquestioned. In Boyle the petitioner’s papers were allowed to be filed and were considered by the Court. The question there was the right of the Court to summarily dispose of the matter prior to service and responsive pleading. Here Mr. Surrick is being prevented at the door of the courthouse from even articulating the basis of his complaint. Such constraint by a judicial body is frightening.
For both of the above stated reasons I must again express my strenuous disagreement.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. Article 1, § 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states in pertinent part:
All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.

. ... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. Const., amend. XIV.
See also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 93 S.Ct. 631, 34 L.Ed.2d 626 (1973) (a due process right of access to the courts exists when fundamental interests are present and the State has exclusive control over “the adjustment of [the] legal relationship[s]“ involved.)

. Article 5, Section 18(i) provides
No justice or judge shall participate as a member of the board of the Supreme Court in any proceeding involving his suspension, removal, discipline or compulsory retirement.
U.S. Const, art. V, § 18(i).

. Section 18(h) provides:
(h) The Supreme Court shall review the record of the board’s proceedings on the law and facts and may permit the introduction of additional evidence. It shall order suspension, removal, discipline or compulsory retirement, or wholly reject the recommendation, as it finds just and proper. Upon an order for compulsory retirement, the justice or judge shall be retired with the same rights and privileges were he retired under section sixteen of this article. Upon an order for suspension or removal, the justice or judge shall be suspended or removed from office, and his salary shall cease from the date of such order. All papers filed with and proceedings before the board shall be confidential but upon being filed by the board in the Supreme Court, the record shall lose its confidential character. The filing of papers with and the giving of testimony before the board shall be privileged.
Pa. Const, art. V, § 18(h).

. Section 3334 provides:
*31§ 3334. Proceedings confidential
All papers filed with and proceedings before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board shall be confidential but upon being filed by the board in the Supreme Court, the record shall lose its confidential character.

. Boyle v. O’Bannon, supra (Nix, J., dissenting).