Judicial Power: Can Judges Change State Laws?

A judge has many duties, including presiding over trials, ruling on motions and objections, instructing juries, and making rulings. In the United States, there are federal judges who decide matters of federal law, and state judges who hear matters of first impression and appeals. While a judge can change a jury's decision, they cannot change a state law. However, they can encourage lawyers to provide pro bono legal services and can act pro se in all legal matters. Additionally, a judge can change a child custody order if a parent requests a modification and proves a substantial change of circumstances affecting the child's welfare.

Can a judge change a state law?

Child custody orders can be changed by a judge if a child's safety is at risk

In the United States, judges are bound by a Code of Conduct that upholds the integrity and independence of the judiciary. They are to perform their duties impartially and diligently, and must comply with the law. In this context, a judge cannot change a state law but can modify a child custody order if the child's safety and well-being are at risk.

Child custody orders are designed to provide stability for children in the long term. However, a judge can modify these orders if there is a substantial change in circumstances that affects the child's welfare. This could include situations where the child is endangered by the parent's behaviours, such as abuse, substance abuse, or mental health issues. If the child is at risk of physical or emotional harm, the court may modify the custody agreement to ensure the child's safety.

For instance, if a parent is engaging in behaviours that endanger the child's health, the court could remove or limit that parent's physical custody rights. The court may also consider the child's relationship needs and whether one parent can provide a more stable and nurturing environment. Additionally, if one of the parents needs to relocate, the court will consider the child's best interests and may change the visitation schedule or require virtual visits.

In cases where there are concerns about the child's safety, the court will employ some form of the "best interest of the child" standard to make decisions regarding custody and visitation. This may include keeping all protections in place, such as no contact with the child, unless there is strong evidence of change and compliance by the abusive parent. Clear and precise orders, including detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, are beneficial to both parents as they provide clarity and support the safety of the child.

It is important to note that parents can also create their own parenting plan and negotiate physical and legal custody without leaving these decisions to the court. If both parents agree that their existing custody arrangement should change, they can petition the court together for a modification.

A judge can change a jury's decision if it is not supported by evidence

In the United States, a judge can change a jury's decision if it is not supported by the evidence. This is known as a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). A JNOV is a rarely granted intervention that allows the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions. It is only appropriate if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict as a matter of law. For example, if a party presents no evidence on an essential element of their case but the jury still finds in their favor, the judge may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment.

The legal system gives juries wide leeway when making decisions, and judges are generally reluctant to overturn a jury's decision. However, juries must make judgments based on the facts, and a judge may intervene if they believe that there were insufficient facts to support the jury's verdict or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. This is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, known as a directed verdict.

In a bench trial, the judge acts as the "trier of fact" and reviews the evidence presented by both sides to determine if the side with the burden of proof has presented enough relevant facts to meet their burden. The judge then makes a ruling based on the law and the facts of the case. If the judge finds for the plaintiff, they also decide on the damages or other relief awarded.

It is important to note that a judge's ability to change a jury's decision may vary depending on the specific state laws and the type of case being tried. For example, in criminal cases, a judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal, as it would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

A judge can be changed if they are not impartial

Judges play a crucial role in upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary, and they must comply with the law and a strict Code of Conduct. They have a duty to act without fear or favour and perform their duties fairly, impartially, and diligently. A judge can be changed if they are unable to remain impartial, which is considered a violation of their ethical duties.

Impartiality is a cornerstone of a judge's role, and they must be open-minded about the facts of a case, making decisions based solely on the evidence presented. They should not exhibit bias or favour one party over another. If a judge is found to have engaged in misconduct or behaved inappropriately, they can be sanctioned or removed from their position. Judicial misconduct can take many forms, including improper demeanour, failure to disqualify when there is a conflict of interest, engaging in ex parte communication, and failure to perform their duties in a timely manner. Behaviour outside the courtroom can also be scrutinised if it calls into question a judge's integrity.

In the United States, a transfer of a case from one judge to another is possible, and the process varies depending on the state and federal court laws. Each state has its own procedures for requesting a transfer, and it is generally easier to obtain a transfer early in the proceedings. If a judge recognises that their impartiality may be compromised due to their interest in the case or relationship with the parties, they can recuse themselves, removing themselves from the case.

To initiate a change of judge, an attorney typically files a motion requesting a new judge, outlining the reasons and providing supporting evidence. The judge may then decide to recuse themselves, or the matter may be referred to another judge to decide on the motion. Some states, like California, allow for peremptory challenges, where a party can request a judge's removal without providing a reason, or removal "for cause," where a reason must be given.

In summary, a judge can be changed if their impartiality is questioned or they are found to have engaged in misconduct. The process for requesting a transfer of a case to a different judge varies by jurisdiction, and there are mechanisms in place to ensure that judges uphold ethical standards and maintain the public's trust and confidence.

A judge can change a child custody order if a parent violates the existing agreement

A judge cannot change a state law. However, a judge can change a child custody order if a parent violates the existing agreement. If a parent is not adhering to the child custody decisions, the other parent can file a motion to modify the child custody order. This motion must be accompanied by proper notice to the other parent and evidence in court that demonstrates the violations are a substantial change of circumstances affecting the child's welfare. The court can modify the child custody arrangement if a judge finds two facts to be true: a substantial change of circumstances affecting the child's welfare, and modifying the child custody agreement is in the child's best interest.

For example, if a custodial parent repeatedly refuses to deliver the child to the non-custodial parent for visitation, the court may give the non-custodial parent custody and limit the other parent's visitation rights. The court may also modify the existing custody arrangement to give more visitation time to a parent who has overcome an addiction and is now better able to care for the child. If a parent's behavior endangers the child's health, the court could modify the order and remove or limit that parent's physical custody rights. Such behaviors may include substance abuse, serious mental health concerns, or placing the child in circumstances that put them at risk of abuse.

In some cases, parents can create a parenting plan together and negotiate physical and legal custody without leaving the decision to the court. If both parents agree that the existing custody arrangement should change, they can petition the court together and request a modification. It is important to note that custody agreements are designed to remain in place for the long term to provide stability for children. Therefore, modifications are typically made only when there is a significant and permanent change in circumstances that impacts the child's best interests.

A judge can change a ruling on damages if they deem it excessive

In the United States, judges play a crucial role in upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. They are responsible for presiding over trials, ruling on motions, ensuring adherence to the law, and making final rulings. In civil cases, judges have the authority to change a ruling on damages if they deem it excessive.

Civil cases often involve disputes between a plaintiff and a defendant, where the plaintiff seeks compensation for damages caused by the defendant. The plaintiff initiates the lawsuit by filing a complaint with the court, outlining the damages incurred and the role of the defendant in causing them. The court may then encourage mediation or arbitration to resolve the dispute without a trial.

During a trial, the judge's role is crucial. In a jury trial, the judge explains the relevant laws and guides the jury in their decision-making. The jury determines the defendant's responsibility and assesses the damages to be awarded. However, in a "bench" trial without a jury, the judge assumes the role of the trier of law and fact, ruling on all aspects of the case, including damages.

While the plaintiff typically states the damages sought in the initial complaint, they may seek to amend this amount as the case progresses. There is no clear-cut rule prohibiting this practice, and judges have some discretion in allowing amendments. However, the court considers the trade-off between adjusting the relief sought and the potential delay and complications in the proceedings.

In some instances, judges have deemed punitive damage awards as excessive. For example, in the 1930s, a $50,000 punitive award was considered astounding, while awards under $100,000 were viewed as extraordinary. Judges may use their discretion to reduce or eliminate punitive damages if they are deemed excessive or not accompanied by compensatory damages.

Frequently asked questions