Print Page | Sign In | Register
The Advocate
Blog Home All Blogs
Search all posts for:   


View all (149) posts »

Solomon vs. State of Kansas

Posted By Joseph N. Molina III, Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Updated: Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Yesterday, the Kansas Supreme Court decided they were not required to recuse themselves from the Solomon vs. State case. Solomon deals with the unconstitutional infringement of the Court’s "general administrative authority”. See; Article 3, section1 of Kansas Constitution. The issue on appeal is whether a 2014 Senate Bill (Sen Sub for HB 2338), which contains provisions allowing each judicial district to elect their chief judge and providing more flexibility for each judicial district regarding its budget, is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

The State appeals a district court verdict which found the law, Sen Sub for HB 2338, unconstitutional. The state made a motion requesting all seven Kansas Supreme Court Justices to recuse. The Kansas Supreme Court concluded that "no justice is compelled by the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct or other law to recuse.” However, Chief Justice Lawton Nuss believed it best to "maintain the appearance of impartiality” decided to step away from the case. Chief Justice Nuss wrote "And when the written testimony to the House Appropriations Committee is considered with the rest of my personal involvement addressed in the court’s order, while I am not required to recuse in this case, I shall do so voluntarily.”

The other six justices will remain on the case.

See Order;

See also; - Wichita Eagle;

See; -


Oral arguments have been scheduled for December 10th beginning at 9:00am. Each side will be allotted 20 minutes. All documents filed in this case are available on the court's website at

All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live through the Watch Supreme Court Live! link in the right-hand column of the Kansas judicial branch website at

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
Permalink | Comments (0)