Dean Emeritus Jon Mills, at right, introduces Florida Supreme Court justices during a discussion of the importance of an independent judiciary. (Photo by Marcela Suter)

By Felicia Holloman (3L)

Marbury v. Madison. Brown v. Board of Education. These are some of the most well-known and influential cases in history, but also some of the most unpopular or controversial during the time of the rulings. The rulings may not have been possible without an independent judicial branch — one free of political bias and societal whims.

Florida Supreme Court Justices Barbara J. Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, Peggy A. Quince, and Jorge Labarga spoke candidly at UF Law Oct. 18 about the importance of judicial independence and the challenge to maintain an unbiased court system. The justices arrived to a lively Martin H. Levin Advocacy Center courtroom packed with students, faculty and staff.

Dean Emeritus Jon Mills gave opening remarks and said “We take for granted what the Constitution did when it created an independent judiciary.”

Mills noted that Florida’s judicial system was not always independent of politics. Prior to the 1970s, judges ran for election.

Lewis remembers the time of judicial elections and discussed discouraging experiences as a young lawyer campaigning for Shelby Highsmith for Florida Supreme Court justice.

“(The experience) made me wonder if I had selected the right profession,” Lewis said. “The state was in an awful mess.”

It was not until 1972 that Florida judicial elections became non-partisan. According to Pariente, non-partisan elections reflect the belief that judges should not “fear that their livelihood or tenure” would be in jeopardy due to an unpopular ruling.

Labarga noted the backlash for his ruling as a circuit court judge in Bush v. Gore.

“I followed the rule of law. Some people cannot accept that,” Labarga said, who then joked that he was glad to have been four years away from an election at the time of the ruling.

Judicial independence brings stability to courts. According to Quince, stability means citizens will know what to expect from their court experience.

“Win or lose, you will know you are coming before a judge that is fair and impartial,” Quince said.

The discussion comes ahead of the Nov. 6 election on whether to retain Pariente, Quince, and Lewis. The Florida Republican Party recently announced that it opposes retention of the justices, and conservative groups are campaigning against them.

Voters decide every six years whether to retain Florida Supreme Court justices.

Pariente expressed concern over the increasing politicization of judicial elections. “We now have super PACs, many outside the state, trying to impact elections.”

“There is a conscious, very dedicated attempt to involve partisan politics in the judiciary,” agreed Justice Lewis.

However, Justice Pariente hopes that citizens will not allow the judiciary “to be bought” in the coming election.

The panel was moderated by Carl Schwait, an adjunct professor of law, a member of The Florida Bar Board of Governors, and a senior partner at Dell Graham, P.A. The Gerald T. Bennett Inn of Court and The Florida Bar Law Student Division sponsored the event.

From left, Florida Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga, Justice Peggy A. Quince, Justice Barbara J. Pariente, Chief Justice Charles T. Canady, Justice R. Fred Lewis, Justice Ricky Polston and Justice James E.C. Perry stand with UF Law students from left, Monica Haddad, Mary Katherine Tinsley, Leah Edelman, Wilbert Vancol, David Hughes and David Evans. (Photo by Nicole Safker)

In the fictional appeal case of Zydeco, Inc. v. Mary Macdonald, Leah Edelman (3L) and Wilbert Vancol (3L) were the petitioners on behalf of pharmaceutical company Zydeco, Inc., challenging the constitutionality of “The Drug Free Texifornia Act of 2010.” David Evans (3L) and Monica Haddad (2L) were on the responding team representing Texifornia Attorney General Mary Macdonald. Alternates were Mary Katherine Tinsley (3L) and David Hughes (3L).

As the petitioners and respondents stated their cases, members of the Florida Supreme Court asked questions and challenged the competitor’s arguments, allowing the team members to demonstrate their appellate advocacy skills. The Maguire Competition provides the Florida Moot Court Team with valuable practice for the upcoming American Bar Association National Appellate Advocacy Competition.

At the end of the competition, Chief Justice Charles T. Canady announced that Vancol won the award for best oralist in the competition and the best team award went to the petitioning side.

“I just want to say that we’ve heard some outstanding advocacy today,” said Canady. “It is obvious that the people arguing here before this court today were well prepared and are skillful advocates who have a very promising future as advocates in the law, so we want to congratulate all of you.”

The competition is named after Raymer F. Maguire Jr. (JD 15), son of the founder of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., managing partner of the firm, and UF Law alumnus. In the summer of 1998, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. merged with the law firm of Holland & Knight LLP, who continued the tradition of sponsoring the competition.

For more photos, view the gallery on our Facebook page.