CHARLESTON — An acting version of the state Supreme Court has ruled its authority has ended, striking down a request by the state Senate to reconsider a decision blocking the impeachment trials of justices.
That means the acting Supreme Court is not going to consider the matter any more.
The order was issued today by a Supreme Court made up of circuit judges James Matish, Ronald Wilson, Duke Bloom, Rudolph Murensky and Jacob Reger, who were appointed when the actual justices recused themselves.
“This court does not have the inherent authority to recall its mandate and there are no extraordinary circumstances that exist that warrant recalling the mandate,” the acting justices wrote.
The acting of the Supreme Court ruled last month that the Legislature had violated the separation of powers in articles of impeachment that dealt with how the judiciary governs itself.
The acting Supreme Court also ruled that the House of Delegates had violated its own procedures when it impeached West Virginia’s remaining Supreme Court justices.
That halted the impeachment trials for Chief Justice Workman, retired Justice Robin Davis and Justice Allen Loughry, who has since resigned after being convicted on 11 federal charges.
Outside counsel for the state Senate filed a motion taking issue with all of that and asking for the case to be reconsidered.
Among the arguments by the Senate was that the acting Supreme Court’s opinion ignored the Constitution’s exclusive grant of impeachment powers to the Legislature.
“In striking down the Articles of Impeachment against Petitioner on the grounds that they violate the Separation of Powers doctrine, and the Judicial Branch’s inherent authority to ‘keep its own house in order,’ the Opinion ignores that the judiciary’s authority in that regard is explicitly overridden when it comes to the Constitution’s ‘specific grant’ of impeachment to the Legislature,” the Senate’s lawyers wrote.
Lawyers for the Senate also argued that while the original petition by Chief Justice Workman named the Senate, the ruling found fault with procedures in the House of Delegates.
That violates the separation of powers as it applies to the Legislature, the lawyers for the Senate wrote.
“The omission of the House of Delegates from these proceedings, in light of the issuance of a writ of prohibition, raises a Separation of Powers issue that warrants rehearing,” the lawyers wrote.
In any case, the judiciary crossed a boundary by ruling on House procedures, the Senate’s lawyers contended.
“By adjudicating the validity of procedures used by the House of Delegates, this Court has clearly affected the House of Delegates’ inherent authority ‘to keep its own house in order’ pursuant to the Separation of Powers Doctrine,’ the lawyers wrote.
