A federal appeals court panel in Cincinnati expressed skepticism that an official at the Tennessee Supreme Court’s legal ethics board should be able to avoid a lawsuit by a lawyer who says his termination for tweeting about Muslims violated his First Amendment rights.
Judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pushed back during oral argument Wednesday on the claim that the employment decision merited immunity because it was a judicial function meant to protect the integrity of the disciplinary process for attorneys practicing in the state.
The case has the potential to clarify the boundary between judicial actions triggering immunity from lawsuits and administrative actions that do not, particularly in the context of employment lawsuits alleging discrimination or other workplace misconduct.
The attorney for the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Responsibility and the board’s chief disciplinary counsel likened the firing to “permanent recusal.”
“You characterize it as a recusal issue, but isn’t it really just a personnel matter, which is typically an administrative function and not a judicial function?” asked Judge Stephanie Davis, a Biden appointee.
Tennessee Assistant Attorney General David Rudolph said the decision to fire Jerry Morgan had elements of both, as it arose from allegations in lawyer Brian Manookian’s motion to...
To display this content from YouTube, you must enable advertisement tracking and audience measurement. 2 min One account known for spreading anti-Indian disinformation and fake news shared what it...