Vermont Supreme Court

Court Information
Justices: 5
Founded: 1777
Location: Montpelier
Salary
Chief: $177,203

Associates: $166,868

Judicial Selection
Method: Assisted appointment (Hybrid)
Term: 6 years
Active justices

Harold Eaton (Vermont)
Karen R. Carroll
Nancy Waples
Paul Reiber
William Cohen

Founded in 1777, the Vermont Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has five judgeships. The current chief of the court is Paul Reiber. In 2018, the court decided 455 cases.

As of April 2022, four judges on the court were appointed by a Republican governor and one was appointed by a Democratic governor.

The Vermont Supreme Court is located in Montpelier, Vermont.[1]

In Vermont, state supreme court justices are selected through assisted appointment with a hybrid judicial nominating commission. Justices are appointed by the governor with the assistance of a commission who has no majority of members selected either by the governor or the state Bar Association. As of September 24, 2022, there are 10 states that use this selection method. To read more about the assisted appointment of judges, click here.

## Contents

* 1 Jurisdiction
* 2 Justices
* 3 Judicial selection
* 3.1 Qualifications
* 3.2 Chief justice
* 3.3 Vacancies
* 4 Appointments
* 5 Caseloads
* 6 Analysis
* 6.1 Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)
* 6.1.1 Summary of cases decided in 2020
* 6.2 Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)
* 6.3 Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)
* 7 Noteworthy cases
* 8 Ethics
* 8.1 Financial disclosure
* 9 History of the court
* 10 Courts in Vermont
* 11 Party control of Vermont state government
* 11.1 Trifecta history
* 12 See also
* 13 External links
* 14 Footnotes

## Jurisdiction[edit]

The court has jurisdiction over final appeals in all cases originating in the state courts and establishes the rules of civil, criminal, family, and appellate procedure. Additionally, the Vermont Supreme Court has the responsibility of administering the court system, must admit all attorneys in the state to practice law, and is the disciplinary authority for judicial officers and attorneys.[2]

The following text from Chapter II, Section 30 of the Vermont Constitution covers the organization and jurisdiction of the court:

“  | Supreme Court; Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court shall exercise appellate jurisdiction in all cases, criminal and civil, under such terms and conditions as it shall specify in rules not inconsistent with law. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction only as provided by law, but it shall have the power to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court shall have administrative control of all the courts of the state, and disciplinary authority concerning all judicial officers and attorneys at law in the State.[3][4]

| ”

|
|

—Vermont Constitution, Chapter II, Section 30

## Justices[edit]

Judge | Appointed By

|

Paul L. Reiber

Jim Douglas (R)

Nancy Waples

Phil Scott (R)

Karen R. Carroll

Phil Scott (R)

William Cohen

Phil Scott (R)

Harold Eaton

Peter Shumlin (D)

## Judicial selection[edit]

See also: Judicial selection in Vermont

The five justices of the Vermont Supreme Court are selected through assisted appointment where the governor appoints a judge from a nominating commission's list and the Vermont Senate confirms the appointee.[5] Once confirmed, appointees serve six-year terms. At the end of each term, judges face retention by a vote of the Vermont General Assembly.[5]

### Qualifications[edit]

To serve on the Vermont Supreme Court, a judge must:

* have practiced law as an attorney or served as a judge in the state for more than five of the last 10 years and
* be under the age of 70.[5]

### Chief justice[edit]

The chief justice of the supreme court is chosen through the same assisted appointment method as the other judges on the court and serves in that capacity for a full six-year term.[5]

### Vacancies[edit]

See also: How vacancies are filled in state supreme courts

When a midterm vacancy occurs, the judgeship is filled through the same assisted appointment method otherwise used to select judges. Interim judges serve until the expiration of their predecessor's term, at which point they face retention by a vote of the Vermont General Assembly.[5]

The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.

## Appointments[edit]

In Vermont, judges are appointed by the governor from a list of candidates provided by a judicial selection commission and are confirmed by the state senate. At the end of each six year term, judges face a retention vote in the general assembly.

## Caseloads[edit]

The table below details the number of cases filed with the court and the number of dispositions (decisions) the court reached in each year.[6]

Vermont Supreme Court caseload data

Year  | Filings  | Dispositions
2020 | 373 | 418
2019 | 403 | 407
2018 | 438 | 455
2017 | 442 | 415
2016 | 448 | 484
2015 | 504 | 522
2014 | \
[7] | 479
2013 | 510 | 475
2012 | 423 | 430
2011 | 480 | 487
2010 | 511 | 489
2009 | 479 | 503
2008 | 503 | 585
2007 | 530 | 571

## Analysis[edit]

### Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters, a study on how state supreme court justices decided the cases that came before them. Our goal was to determine which justices ruled together most often, which frequently dissented, and which courts featured the most unanimous or contentious decisions.

The study tracked the position taken by each state supreme court justice in every case they decided in 2020, then tallied the number of times the justices on the court ruled together. We identified the following types of justices:

* We considered two justices opinion partners if they frequently concurred or dissented together throughout the year.
* We considered justices a dissenting minority if they frequently opposed decisions together as a -1 minority.
* We considered a group of justices a determining majority if they frequently determined cases by a +1 majority throughout the year.
* We considered a justice a lone dissenter if he or she frequently dissented alone in cases throughout the year.

#### Summary of cases decided in 2020[edit]

* Number of justices: 5
* Number of cases: 218
* Percentage of cases with a unanimous ruling: 95.9%% (209)
* Justice most often writing the majority opinion: Justice Carroll (22)
* Per curiam decisions: 125
* Concurring opinions: 3
* Justice with most concurring opinions: Justice Robinson (2)
* Dissenting opinions: 9
* Justice with most dissenting opinions: Justices Reiber and Robinson (3)

For the study's full set of findings in Vermont, click here.

### Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship

Last updated: June 15, 2020

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.

The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation, based on a variety of factors. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on the political or ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. To arrive at confidence scores we analyzed each justice's past partisan activity by collecting data on campaign finance, past political positions, party registration history, as well as other factors. The five categories of Confidence Scores were:

* Strong Democrat
* Mild Democrat
* Indeterminate[8]
* Mild Republican
* Strong Republican

We used the Confidence Scores of each justice to develop a Court Balance Score, which attempted to show the balance among justices with Democratic, Republican, and Indeterminate Confidence Scores on a court. Courts with higher positive Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Republican Confidence Scores, while courts with lower negative Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Democratic Confidence Scores. Courts closest to zero either had justices with conflicting partisanship or justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores.[9]

Vermont had a Court Balance Score of -1.2, indicating Split control of the court. In total, the study found that there were 15 states with Democrat-controlled courts, 27 states with Republican-controlled courts, and eight states with Split courts. The map below shows the court balance score of each state.

### Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)[edit]

See also: Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores of state supreme court justices, 2012

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Vermont was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Vermont received a score of -0.60. Based on the justices selected, Vermont was the 7th most liberal court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, or—in the absence of elections—the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.[10]

## Noteworthy cases[edit]

The following are noteworthy cases heard before the Vermont Supreme Court. For a full list of opinions published by the court, click here. Know of a case we should cover here? Let us know by emailing us.

• The right to a speedy trial - Michael Brillon| Click for summary→

|

The Vermont Supreme Court came under scrutiny over a ruling in which they overturned the assault conviction of Michael Brillon, who sat in jail without bail for nearly three years and went through six public defenders before being tried for assault.[11]

Brillon needed a public defender to represent himself in court and the case inched along as lawyer after lawyer asked for postponements, withdrew or were replaced at Brillon's request. The sixth lawyer took the case to trial in 2004 where Brillon was convicted and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison because the judge who sentenced Brillon believed he was a habitual offender with three prior felony convictions.[11]

Brillon appealed the case to the Vermont Supreme Court, claiming his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy and fair trial were violated. The court ruled in his favor and dismissed his assault conviction, saying the delays were the fault of the state to provide a public defender in a timely fashion.[11]

The ruling prompted outrage among victim's rights advocates and other pro-law enforcement organizations because Brillon was freed and they feared that other suspects would take his cue hoping for a similar outcome.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States by the Vermont Attorney General's Office. The Court reversed the state court's decision on March 9, 2009, ruling:

| “  | We hold that the Vermont Supreme Court erred in ranking assigned counsel essentially as state actors in the criminal justice system. Assigned counsel, just as retained counsel, act on behalf of their clients, and delays sought by counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent. For a total of some six months of the time that elapsed between Brillon’s arrest and his trial, Brillon lacked an attorney. The State may be charged with those months if the gaps resulted from the trial court’s failure to appoint replacement counsel with dispatch. Similarly, the State may bear responsibility if there is “a breakdown in the public defender system.” Id., at 1111. But, as the Vermont Supreme Court acknowledged, id., at 1126, the record does not establish any such institutional breakdown.[4] | ”

|
|

—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Opinion of the Supreme Court[12]

## Ethics[edit]

### Financial disclosure[edit]

See also: Center for Public Integrity Study on State Supreme Court Disclosure Requirements

In December 2013, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) released a study on disclosure requirements for state supreme court judges. According to their website, CPI's purpose is "[t]o serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism."[13] Analysts from the Center reviewed the rules governing financial disclosure in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as personal financial disclosures for the previous three years. The study gave 42 states and Washington, D.C., failing grades. Vermont earned a grade of F in the study. No state received a grade higher than "C." The study also reported 35 instances of questionable gifts, investments overlapping with caseloads, and similar potential ethical quandaries, along with 14 cases in which justices participated although they or their spouses held stock in the company involved in the litigation.[14]

## History of the court[edit]

Supreme Court of Vermont in Montpelier

The selection method of justices has changed four times since 1777, when all judges were appointed by the governor with consent of the executive council. In 1786, the system of selecting justices was changed to one in which all judges were elected to one-year terms by the state legislature. In 1870, justices were elected to the court by the state legislature to two-year terms. In 1967, the general assembly enacted a statute that established a panel to review candidates for judicial vacancies and to provide the governor with a list of qualified candidates. In 1974, the state's voters approved a constitutional amendment creating the current system, under which a judicial nominating board gives a list of names for appointment to the governor, whose selection must be confirmed by the senate.[15]

The judicial branch in Vermont, including the supreme court, has a $32 million annual budget; the state judiciary was originally targeted for $2.4 million in reductions as part of general reductions in the state's budget.[16]

## Courts in Vermont[edit]

See also: Courts in Vermont

In addition to the federal courts in Vermont, there is one appellate court (the supreme court) that administers the rest of the trial court system. Their infrastructure and relationship are illustrated in the flow chart below.

The structure of Vermont's state court system.

## Party control of Vermont state government[edit]

### Trifecta history[edit]

A state government trifecta is a term that describes single-party government, when one political party holds the governor's office and has majorities in both chambers of the legislature in a state government. A state supreme court plays a role in the checks and balances system of a state government.

Vermont has a divided government where neither party holds a trifecta. The Republican Party controls the office of governor, while the Democratic Party controls both chambers of the state legislature.

## See also[edit]

* Vermont Superior Court
* Judicial selection in Vermont
* Vermont judicial news

## External links[edit]

* Homepage of the Vermont Supreme Court
* Vermont Supreme Court published opinions
* Vermont Public Library's opinions page
* Examiner News on Vermont Supreme Court
* VPR News "Lawmakers Approve Supreme Court Judges For Another Term" 03/30/11

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Vermont Judiciary, "Supreme Court," accessed August 20, 2021
2. ↑ Vermont Judiciary, "Vermont Supreme Court," accessed February 2, 2015
3. ↑ Vermont State Legislature, "Constitution of Vermont," accessed March 30, 2014
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Vermont," accessed August 20, 2021
6. ↑ Vermont Judiciary, "Court Statistics and Reports," accessed August 20, 2021
7. ↑ The annual statistical report for 2014 did not include information for cases filed with the supreme court during the year.
8. ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
9. ↑ The Court Balance Score is calculated by finding the average partisan Confidence Score of all justices on a state supreme court. For example, if a state has justices on the state supreme court with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, 14, -2, 3, and 4, the Court Balance is the average of those scores: 3.3. Therefore, the Confidence Score on the court is Mild Republican. The use of positive and negative numbers in presenting both Confidence Scores and Court Balance Scores should not be understood to that either a Republican or Democratic score is positive or negative. The numerical values represent their distance from zero, not whether one score is better or worse than another.
10. ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Burlington Free-Press, "Speedy Trial to go in front of the Supreme Court of the United States," January 12, 2009
12. ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Vermont v. Brillon," March 9, 2009
13. ↑ Center for Public Integrity, "About The Center for Public Integrity," accessed March 2, 2018
14. ↑ Center for Public Integrity, "State supreme court judges reveal scant financial information," December 5, 2013
15. ↑ American Judicature Society, "History of Reform Efforts: Vermont," archived October 6, 2014
16. ↑ Fox 44, "Vermont courts' reduction seen smaller," December 29, 2008

Vermont courts

* * *

Federal courts:

Second Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Vermont • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Vermont

State courts:

Vermont Supreme Court • Vermont Superior Courts • Vermont Probate Court • Vermont Judicial Bureau

State resources:

Courts in Vermont • Vermont judicial elections • Judicial selection in Vermont

v • e

Vermont Supreme Court
Judicial selection in Vermont • Noteworthy cases • Courts in Vermont

|

Current|

Chief Justice: Paul Reiber • William Cohen • Harold Eaton (Vermont) • Karen R. Carroll • Nancy Waples

Former|

John Dooley • Denise Johnson (Vermont) • Marilyn Skoglund • Brian Burgess • Harrie Brigham Chase • Franklin Billings • James Holden • Geoffrey Crawford • Beth Robinson •

v • e

Supreme Courts

Federal|

Supreme Court of the United States

State|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • D.C. • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oklahoma Criminal • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Texas Criminal • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming