Carney v. Adams

In Carney v. Adams, James R. Adams, a Delaware lawyer and registered political independent, challenged two provisions of the Delaware Constitution that require political balance on the state's major courts. The "bare majority" provision limits judges from the same political party to a bare majority, while the "major party" provision requires the remaining judges on three courts to belong to the other major party. Adams argued these rules violated his First Amendment right to freedom of association by making him ineligible for a judgeship unless he joined a major party. The federal district court ruled for Adams, finding he had standing and that the provisions were unconstitutional. The Third Circuit affirmed in part, holding Adams had standing to challenge the major party provision but not the bare majority requirement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Adams lacked Article III standing because he had not shown he was "able and ready" to apply for a judicial vacancy in the imminent future.

The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit's decision in an 8-0 vote, holding that Adams lacked standing because he failed to show he was "able and ready" to apply for a judicial vacancy in the imminent future. The case was vacated and remanded.

Whether a political independent has Article III standing to challenge Delaware's constitutional provisions requiring political balance on its major courts, and whether those provisions violate the First Amendment.

The decision left Delaware's partisan balance requirements intact, preserving a system that some argue enhances public confidence in judicial neutrality. However, the ruling was based on standing grounds rather than the merits, and Justice Sotomayor's concurrence noted the constitutional issue "will likely be raised again." The case also drew attention to the rights of unaffiliated voters and the methods states use to achieve politically neutral judiciaries.