What Do State High Court Justices Like About Their Jobs? 

In February 2024, the Brennan Center for Justice, State Court Report, and the NYU Law Review hosted a symposium dedicated to state constitutional law. Several state supreme court justices who participated sat down for interviews with State Court Report. Among other questions, we asked them what they enjoyed about sitting on a state high court.

Some mentioned the intellectual challenges of the role. Others highlighted the friendships they developed with colleagues. And justice after justice pointed to one particularly meaningful aspect of the job: the ability to help the people living in their state solve serious problems. Indeed, state supreme courts have the final say on issues that impact the daily lives of countless Americans — including abortion, voting rights, environmental justice, and much more.

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush: I love the state courts. Ninety-eight percent of the cases in the country are resolved in state courts. And they have become sort of our government’s emergency rooms for society’s worst afflictions, such as substance abuse, mental illness, domestic violence, homelessness. I also love that part of our constitutional responsibility on a state supreme court is overseeing the entire judiciary.

In Indiana, we have around 6.8 million people and more than 1.2 million cases filed each year. We’re dealing with things from child support, evictions, guardianships, and adoptions to contract disputes and criminal matters. So many issues that are just core to a person’s life.

What is your responsibility when you are behind the bench facing all these societal ills? You’ve got to train your judges on mental health. You’ve got to look at pretrial reform. Twenty-five years ago, only 25 percent of the people in jail were being held pretrial. Now it’s 75 percent. That means that most people in jail today haven’t been convicted yet — they just can’t afford bail. We have a wealth-based bail system.

You’ve got to start fixing things within the judiciary that bring people down. You see people with transportation issues and have trouble getting to court; 70 percent of people in jails have mental health or substance abuse issues. You’re seeing more and more low- and middle-income people who can’t afford lawyers, so their needs go unmet.

What can you do to improve the lives of the people that come before you? Sometimes it’s not just deciding the case. It’s working within your larger community to make sure resources are there. We’ve tripled our problem-solving courts in Indiana — mental health, substance abuse, and veterans’ courts. We also have family recovery courts now, which allow children to stay with their parents while they go through recovery.

I always tell my judges, “Get out from behind the bench and work to make your community stronger.” I chaired a national opioid task force where I learned what levers the courts can pull regarding the behavioral health challenges that bring people to court. The primary referral source to get somebody to treatment is the criminal justice system.

Former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson: While there are a lot of things I enjoyed, the first is the variety of cases we had. The Supreme Court of Texas is a discretionary court, so we got to compose our own docket and hear fascinating cases with great lawyers. You learn a whole lot about the law in each case. Another thing I liked was working with the bar, the legislature, and the executive branch on questions of administration of justice. That really took off when I became chief justice. I got to work on policy issues. I worked on improving efficiency in the court system, and access to justice.

The Texas Supreme Court only hears civil cases — criminal cases go to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. But I could work on things like how to better tackle exonerations of people who were found guilty but who were innocent. How do we take at least small steps toward providing a remedy for the years they lost? I pushed for statewide reforms to help ensure wrongful convictions are investigated and overturned. Most of the public doesn’t understand that courts, and chief justices especially, do those sorts of projects. They can make a huge difference in people’s lives outside of the court.

Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Pariente: Nationwide, most litigation occurs in state courts. What was important to me during my time on the court, especially as chief justice, was the ability to diversify our workforce, implement changes in the way that cases involving children and families were processed, and promote civic education.

Florida does a lot of things right when it comes to its judiciary. Its constitution has an amendment that requires funding for courts to come from the state, rather than local governments. That provision matters, because Florida is a very large state. There are rich counties, poor counties. The amendment attempts to equalize the ability of state courts throughout Florida to process cases in a timely manner and assist litigants in resolving their cases.

Another Florida innovation was televised Florida Supreme Court proceedings starting in the 1980s. I think that is something that the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court should consider following. When you see judges in action, justice is seen as more accessible and understandable.

California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin H. Liu: For anyone who is a generalist, state court is a great place because state courts are courts of general jurisdiction. We hear everything unless some statute or constitutional provision has withdrawn the jurisdiction from us. It’s the exact opposite of the federal courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack jurisdiction unless affirmatively granted. That’s a realization that you quickly have when you become a state court judge.

You come across all the ways that law interacts with society, all the ways the law affects people’s lives — in family law, juvenile law, criminal law, consumer law, labor law. You feel that you are impacting people’s daily lives.

This is specific to my current role, but it’s also a great luxury to have discretionary review. That’s true of many high courts. I have the great fortune of sitting on a court that gets to pick its cases, and we may have a higher percentage of interesting cases as a result. 

Former New York High Court Judge Albert Rosenblatt: I was a trial judge for a time, but most of my years were spent on the New York Court of Appeals. I was very lucky to have great colleagues. I admire them all and have great affection for them all, and I enjoyed interacting with them. The interactions I had with my colleagues on the court for the many years of my tenure on the bench were a special privilege.

Personal friendships emerged. We just talked about everything. We had a custom that when we all went to dinner, we did not talk law. That was the deal. We could talk about anything but the law and the cases before us. So that generated friendship and collegiality, which was really cool. 

Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O’Connor: I started as a magistrate, and I really enjoyed that. You can solve problems for people they can’t solve for themselves. And that’s kind of the tenor of our justice system, isn’t it?

Being a magistrate judge gave me a perspective of what it’s like to be on the bench. We have elected judges in Ohio, and I ran several times for a judge position. I paid my political dues. Eventually, there was a vacancy on a common pleas court, and the governor appointed me. Then I was elected to a six-year term. I thought, well, this is what I’m going to do for my career — I’ll be a judge for the rest of my life.

But then there was a vacancy in the prosecuting attorney’s office. The men up for the job wanted it for the wrong reasons. I went to the party chairman and said, “Listen, I will resign from being a judge if I can be the prosecuting attorney.” I thought it was too important of a job to let go to just anybody. I was appointed, and then I had to stand for election two years later.

The Children’s Defense Fund had come into Ohio and did a survey of all 88 counties, and our county ranked 87th for effectiveness. I turned the agency around. Within a few years, we were nominated for two national awards, including the most improved agency in the country. Hiring the right people is the ticket for my success. I don’t micromanage.

Then I ran for lieutenant governor along with gubernatorial candidate Bob Taft. We were elected. I asked to be director of the Department of Public Safety. We were responsible for response to man-made or natural disasters in the state. September 11, 2001, was on my watch. I became the liaison with the new Homeland Security Department. It turned out to be a good fit. It’s an example of finding myself in the job that I really enjoy. I like learning, being a good public servant, and making things better.

After my stint as lieutenant governor, there was an opening on the supreme court. I ran for the supreme court and won. I really, really enjoyed the supreme court. I really enjoyed my colleagues, the other justices. It was just a really good fit.

I loved the work of a justice. It gave me an opportunity to do a job in the legal arena and also be an administrator. It also let me tackle other things that needed to be done. I was really active in the National Center for State Courts and co-chaired a national bail task force.

And at the end of each fiscal year, we always had some money left. It might be $5 to 7 million. As chief justice, I decided to grant it to the local courts for technology and security enhancement. By the time Covid hit, many courts were in a much better position to go remote because they had enhanced their technology.

North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls: I like the variety of cases. I also like the fact that so many of the cases we’re dealing with have a direct impact on people’s lives — not only the criminal cases, which are half our docket. I see how so many of the cases that we handle impact individuals’ lives and families and communities.

Interviews were conducted by Erin Geiger Smith, a writer and editor at the Brennan Center; Douglas Keith, a founding editor of State Court Report and a senior counsel in the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center; and Gabriella Sanchez, writer and editor at the Brennan Center. Additional excerpts from the justices’ interviews can be found here. 

Suggested Citation: Erin Geiger Smith, Douglas Keith, Gabriella Sanchez, What Do State High Court Justices Like About Being Judges?, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ(Dec. 2, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-do-state-high-court-justices-about-being-judges