“[t]he constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and the [Court of Judicial Discipline], and the legal predicates for their respective actions, are distinct and may comfortably operate separately”
How later courts described this case
- “[t]he constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and the [Court of Judicial Discipline], and the legal predicates for their respective actions, are distinct and may comfortably operate separately”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 18th day of November, 2014, in response to the “Application for Relief,” treated as a King’s Bench Petition, the February 1, 2013 order of this Court, entered at 398 Judicial Administration Docket, is VACATED in its entirety.
The order of February 1, 2013, suspended Petitioner from his judicial office without pay predicated on a federal indictment charging Petitioner with various crimes allegedly committed in connection with that office. The instant vacatur recognizes Petitioner’s subsequent acquittal of all such charges.
As acknowledged by Petitioner, the Court of Judicial Discipline (“CJD”) entered a separate order suspending Petitioner without pay. The present order should not be construed as bearing in any way upon the propriety or longevity of the CJD’s order or upon any further proceedings or action which may be appropriate within the scheme of judicial discipline prescribed in Article V, Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See In re Bruno, 627 Pa. 505 , 101 A.3d 635, 686 (2014) (“[t]he constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and the [Court of Judicial Discipline], and the legal predicates for their respective actions, are distinct and may comfortably operate separately”).
*289 Chief Justice CASTILLE files a dissenting statement.
Justice STEVENS dissents, as he would not vacate the February 1,2013 order.