Gourt Home::Gourt :: New Jersey Supreme Court
The New Jersey Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of New Jersey. It has existed in different forms and names since the original independence of the state in 1776 with the three versions corresponding to the three constitutions of the state. The change in the composition of the court over the three constitutions reflects the change in jurisprudence from the colonial British concept of "Law Lords", or legislators serving part time as judges, to the current form of an independent and nonpartisan court appointed by the other branches of the state's government. In its current form, the New Jersey Supreme Court is the highest and final judicial authority in the state court system and on the constitutionality of state laws with respect to the state constitution and acts as the arbiter and overseer of the decennial redistricting. Throughout its history it has been responsible for numerous precedents, landmark cases and historically important and well known actions.
Previous compositions
Under the two previous New Jersey state constitutions (1776 and 1844), the phrase "Supreme Court" referred to a lower court, similar to the New York Supreme Court. Both the "supreme court" and the actual highest court were composed in a radically different manner then the current supreme court or its inferior courts.
Under the 1776 constitution
Under the colonial constitution of 1776 the upper house of the legislature (which was styled the Legislative Council) along with the governor was to be "the Court of Appeals", defined as the court of last resort, similar to the Law Lords of Great Britain. A separate "Supreme Court" was also mentioned, but no indication of its duties was given, only term limits of its judges (7 years).As time progressed and political philosophies changed, people took issue with numerous parts of the original constitution: It was hastily thrown together, used property qualifications for enfranchisment, contained scant guarantees of freedoms, was unamendable, and freely intermingled the three branches of government.
Under the 1844 constitution
In 1844, the state ratified a new constitution, which continued the practice of having a non-supreme Supreme Court. Under this constitution the highest court was the Court of Errors and Appeals or Court of Errors for short, its sole function was to hear appeals from previous courts' errors in judgment. The new Court of Errors was now composed of various separate judicial officials instead of legislators and the executive. The membership was to consist of the chancellor of the state's court of chancery, who was to be the president, the justices of the supreme court (originally four, legally anything from 2 on up), and 6 appointed judges. The latter six were to be continually replaced at a rate of one per year. The Secretary of State of New Jersey was to serve as the court's clerk, and he and the justices were appointed by the governor with the consent of the New Jersey Senate. The Supreme Court was the second after the Court of Errors, handing all civil cases and criminal cases concerning $3,000 USD or more, and the judges were also appointed by the governor.The new arrangement was old when it began, the basic system having "changed relatively little since the time of George III", and characterized as "the most antiquated ... that exists in any considerable community of English-speaking people"
This arrangement became strained as more cases came before the court (two years after the Constitution was adopted, all of seven cases were heard by the court), as many members had other official duties specified by the constitution. A member of the Senate called the 16 Judge institution "little larger than a jury, little less than a mob". The 1942 commission tasked with considering constitutional change suggested that it be reduced to a seven member panel, all appointed solely to serve on the court. The constitutional convention adopted that as the current system of composition of the court.
Current configuration
Under the current (1947 and amended) constitution, the highest court in the state is the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, it has no original jurisdiction, only hearing appeals and issuing final decisions, regulating the state's court system and regulating the legal profession within the state.
Normally an appeal from a case goes to the New Jersey Superior Court and from there to the Appellate Division of that court. However, appeals may be brought before the supreme court if it meets one or more of the following four requirements or if a law provides that the case may go to the Court: If the case involves a question of constitutionality (This to be determined by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court), if a judge of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court dissented in its ruling, if the case involves the use of capital punishment, if the Supreme Court granted "certification", which is usually done in response to a petition, or if the case involves the drawing of political boundaries (See below).
Political functions
The court also serves as something of a tie-breaker in case the 10 member New Jersey Redistricting Commission fails to come to an agreement on how redistrict the state's Congressional districts following the United States Census every decade. If the commission reports ("certifies") to the court that they're evenly divided, they (the commission) gets to pick two people to be the 11th member. The court appoints the one that's "more qualified" to be the 11th "independent" member who will then break the tie. If they then can't reach a 7 vote supermajority in favor of one districting configuration, they send the two most preferred plans to the court, which then gets to pick. In the case of the Apportionment Commission for state legislative districts, the Chief Justice alone gets to pick the final member of the Commission.The court also acts as final arbiter of the inability or absence of the Governor of New Jersey or Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey, following a declaration by the Legislature. Similar to the federal setup, in case of impeachment of the Governor, the Chief Justice presides.
Appointment, composition, and life on the bench
NewJerseySupremeCourt.jpg|thumb|350px|right|The current justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court.Standing (l to r): John Wallace, James Zazzali, Barry Albin, Roberto Rivero-Soto;
Seated (l to r): Virginia Long, Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, Jaynee LaVecchia]]
The Governor nominates all Justices to the Court, but may only chose among those admitted to the New Jersey bar for at least ten years. Following one full week (7 days) of public notice, nominees are put before the New Jersey Senate for confirmation. Once confirmed, Justices (and all state judges in New Jersey) are given an initial term of seven years. After their initial term, the Governor must reappoint them, and the Senate must again grant "advice and consent", for the Justice to be granted tenure. Justices granted tenure serve until they die, resign, are impeached and removed, or reach the age of 70, at which point they are automatically retired.
The Court consists of 7 justices, of which one is the Chief Justice and six are Associate Justices. Should the court not meet its quorum of five, the Chief Justice may select judges from the Superior Court, senior in service, to serve temporarily on the Supreme Court.
Once in office, their salary (currently 158,500 USD, the 7th highest among state high courts) may not be decreased by the Legislature. While sitting on the bench, they are not to practice law or make money any other way.
A majority of the General Assembly may pass articles of impeachment against a Justice, which the Senate will then try. Only a two-thirds majority will convict, and the Senate may only punish a convicted Justice with removal from office and prohibition on holding future office. After a Justice has been impeached by the General Assembly - but before the Senate renders a verdict on the charges - the Justice may not exercise any official function. By virtue of accepting a position in the Executive or Legislative branches of government or becoming a candidate for political office, a Justice is considered as resigned from the bench.
Should a Justice or Judge become "incapacitated" to the point at which they can no longer continue in office, the Court as a whole may notify the governor. The governor then appoints a three man commission and, depending on their decision, may force them to retire.
Political standing
New Jersey is generally considered a state with fairly liberal institutions and officers (nearly all elected offices pertaining to the state held by the United States Democratic Party), the Supreme Court not excepted. Because of frequent left leaning rulings, it is derided by some conservatives as "activist".
Despite this, an informal tradition exists of Governors appointing justices that are close in ideology, party membership and judicial philosophy to those they replace. The chief justice, however, is usually appointed from a member of the current Governor's party. This was the case for Deborah Poritz, who is a Republican and was appointed by Christine Todd Whitman.
Current membership
The court is currently divided so that there is a slight Democratic majority. There are four Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent. The current Justices of the Court as of June 2006 are as follows:| Name | Sworn in | Term expiration | Mandatory retirement | Appointing Governor | Party membership |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deborah T. Poritz (Chief Justice) | July 10, 1996 | None — Tenured | October 26, 2006 | Christine Todd Whitman, New Jersey Republican Party | Republican |
| Virginia Long | September 1, 1999 | None — Tenured | March 1, 2012 | Christine Todd Whitman, New Jersey Republican Party | Democrat |
| Jaynee LaVecchia | February 1, 2000 | February 1, 2007 | October 9, 2024 | Christine Todd Whitman, New Jersey Republican Party | Independent |
| James R. Zazzali | June 14, 2000 | June 14, 2007 | June 17, 2007 | Christine Todd Whitman, New Jersey Republican Party | Democratic |
| Barry T. Albin | September 18, 2002 | September 18, 2009 | July 7, 2022 | Jim McGreevey, New Jersey Democratic Party | Democratic |
| John E. Wallace, Jr. | May 20, 2003 | May 20, 2010 | 2012 | Jim McGreevey, New Jersey Democratic Party | Democratic |
| Roberto A. Rivera-Soto | September 1, 2004 | September 1, 2011 | November 10, 2023 | Jim McGreevey, New Jersey Democratic Party | Republican |
Five of the seven positions will come up during Jon Corzine's term (January 17 2006 — January 17, 2010) as Governor: Poritz will have to retire and Long, LaVecchia, Zazzali and Albin's initial seven year terms will end. He may choose to renominate the current justices other then Poritz for tenure. Justice Zazzali will likely not be reappointed as he would turn 70 before he could be confirmed by the Senate.
Important cases
The New Jersey Supreme Court has been involved with many cases of landmark importance. Some, such as Holmes v. Walton, were to foreshadow more well known cases of the same effect. Some were precedent setting because the case was overturned by a higher court with a different conclusion.
Constitutional law
The principle of judicial review in New Jersey was the result of then Chief Justice David Brearley's opinion in Holmes v. Walton (1780 or 1779). While the case was decided against the plaintiff, the court's consideration of the matter asserted its ability to determine constitutionality. This was followed up by the federal Supreme Court's case of Marbury v. Madison.
In State v. Post and State v. Van Beuren 20 N.J.L. 368, decided together, the constitutionality of slavery in the state was challenged on the grounds that the first article of the first section of the newly passed (1844) state constitution ("All men are by nature free and independent...") precluded it. The court by two to one (with one absence), rejected this stating that "...the constitution has not ... abolished slavery." This was overturned on December 18, 1865 with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Rights
The Court has delivered many cases concerning the rights of individuals, in many cases reading them expansively:
In State ex rel. T. L. O., 463 A. 2d 934 (1983) the court decided, against two lower courts, that a search of a students purse without a warrant was unreasonable. This was appealed as New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 (1985) wherein the United States Supreme Court ruled that students and minors have a lower expectation of privacy, saying in its noted ruling that "school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority."
In re Quinlan 355 A.2d 647 concerned the right to die of Karen Ann Quinlan, who was in a persistent vegetative state following prolonged respiratory failure. Her parents (and legal guardians) requested to have her ventilator removed, which the officials at the hospital refused to do. The court ultimately ruled in her parents favor. She continued to live without artificial respiration for several years afterwards.
In 1988, the Court ruled in In re Baby M (537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396) that the surrogate mother of Baby M, despite previous rulings denying her custody, was entitled to visitation rights.
Dale v. Boy Scouts of America (160 N.J. 562 (1999)) concerned the right of the Boy Scouts of America organization to expel a member for declaring himself to be homosexual. James Dale, the plaintiff, was a member of the organization for some years before he made his orientation public. Upon discovering this, the district BSA council revoked his membership. Dale sued for violating the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which the court unanimously agreed applied to the BSA. This was then appealed as Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which reversed the ruling.
The court's 2006 decision in Caballero v. Martinez concerned an illegal immigrant, Victor Manuel Caballero, who was injured during an accident while riding in an uninsured vehicle driven by an unlicensed person. The Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund, set up to cover injuries by uninsured drivers, refused to compensate him as he wasn't a legal resident. The Court on hearing his case overruled two lower courts and declared that he was entitled to compensation from the fund, stating that "a person may be a 'resident' even if the intent to remain ultimately is not realized". Previously an individual who had lived five months with relatives was not a resident with respect to the Fund.
Social and political cases
In Abbott v. Burke (1981), or Abbott I, which was filed on behalf of students of the most depressed school districts. The Court decided that a single test must be applied state-wide to determine if students were getting the constitutionally mandated education. Also, the Abbott districts are given state aid to match the operating budget of the richer districts. Since then there have been seven "Abbott cases", many of which ended with the court finding the New Jersey Legislature's latest educational acts unconstitutional.
In 1975 and 1983, two cases, both named Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Township, were decided by the Court. The Constitution was interpreted to require that zoning authorities inclusionarily zone their land to create affordable housing, that the districts had to equally take on the required load of housing, and that exclusionary zoning was illegal. These requirements are now commonly referred to as the Mount Laurel Doctrine. Implementation of the doctrine has been considered less then satisfactory by some. Others, such as Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, advocate complete abolition of the doctrine.
Prior to the United States Senate election, 2002 Robert Torricelli, the incumbent and original candidate, had been "severely admonished" by the federal Senate's Ethics Committee and found his electorate's opinion of him falling. He decided to withdraw from the race and let the state Democratic Party field a replacement (Frank Lautenberg). Because he withdrew after the deadline for ballot changes, the state Democratic party filed suit to have the change effected. In Democratic Party v. Samson (814 A.2d 1028), the Supreme Court unanimously decided that in the interest of a choice for voters, the party would be allowed to make the change. In its opinion it cited previous precedents set by past cases before the Court, including one stating "Election laws are to be liberally construed". Lautenberg proceeded to win the election in November, 2002.
References
- — Note: Webpage uses Java for navigation
External links
"New Jersey Supreme Court"