Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia comes to WVU College of Law
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (WBOY) — The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia stopped by the WVU College of Law Tuesday morning, hearing appellate arguments and giving students a chance to see how a Supreme Court works up close.
Chief Justice William R. Wooton told 12 News that he attended the WVU College of Law to obtain his law degree, along with many of his colleagues. He added that when he attended the college, there was nothing like this that existed for students.
'The Supreme Court was just a mystery,' Wooton stated. 'I think this gives students a firsthand experience without having to leave the school. It also provides an excellent teaching opportunity for the faculty.'
Wooton said that the Supreme Court Justices took some care in selecting the cases that were argued on Tuesday, adding that each of these cases provides an excellent opportunity for teaching points. Three cases were argued during this event: two dealing with Rule 20 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and another dealing with Rule 19 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
'Apart from what it does for the law school, it kind of re-energizes all of us,' said Wooton. 'We love coming back, it's a homecoming if you will and we all have great memories of being in this place, and it's just a lot of fun.'
After the Supreme Court listened to all three arguments, the Justices sat down to eat lunch alongside the students and answer questions. 'I think it's a great experience for students to interact with the Supreme Court Justices. Most of us in my time, you never saw a Supreme Court Justice unless you were in court,' Wooton added.
How you can get traditional Colombian coffee in Gilmer County
According to Wooton, the Supreme Court of Appeals has numerous tasks across the state of West Virginia. The state supreme court is the administrative head of the court, under a 'unified court system,' where the responsibility is exercised among five court Justices.
'An enormous part of our responsibility is administrative,' said Wooton. 'We enter into leases regarding family courts, […] provide the technological support for all the circuit courts and family courts and magistrates, and the computer systems and all that.'
Wooton said that the Supreme Court of Appeals is the 'court of last resort' in West Virginia, adding that any cases can ultimately be appealed to their court. He said that one of Tuesday's cases dealt with a 'certified question' from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the appellate court in the federal system that is one level below the United States Supreme Court.
'If they have a question about what West Virginia law means, and in this case it was 'what does this particular West Virginia statute mean?' Well the federal courts don't take a guess at that,' said Wooton. 'Instead, they refer to the West Virginia Supreme Court to say 'what exactly does this law mean?''
Wooton first joined the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in 2021 and said that they had been holding this event for many years prior. However, he stated that he attended the WVU College of Law a long time ago when the law school wasn't even in the same building, adding that they didn't have a courtroom or any facilities.
He said that during his time in law school, the court was constitutionally different and they didn't have a unified court system. 'That changed with the constitutional amendment where we gained the administrative responsibility for every judge,' Wooton added.
'I think it's important for a law student to watch how every level of court works,' said Wooton. 'They don't often get a chance to see a trial court work, but I think the law school now tries to make that happen.'
Wooton stated that he feels it's important for students to see that standing up and answering questions from a professor is similar to a lawyer arguing an appellate case and answering a question from a Justice. 'It kind of grounds their knowledge of what they're learning as to how it's gonna be applied.'
According to Wooton, trial courts are courts of record, so they function a little bit differently than appellate courts. 'Everything that's said is recorded, taken down and appellate courts are not courts of record. You can't introduce any evidence here, […] all we can do is review the record of what happened below,' he said.
Wooton added that the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia is only able to make a decision as to whether something was done correctly or not. He stated that if there's no indication as to what was done at all, the court is unable to make a judgment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
6 hours ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court backs Catholic Charities in tax exemption case
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with a Catholic charity in Wisconsin, saying it should have qualified for a tax exemption in a decision that has implications for other religiously-affiliated nonprofits. The justices reversed a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court that denied Catholic Charities the same tax exemption that the Catholic Church receives because the group's social services programs are 'primarily charitable and secular' in nature.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Montana Supreme Court of discord
The Great Seal of the State of Montana in the Supreme Court (Photo by Eric Seidle/ For the Daily Montanan). The recent dust-up within the Montana Supreme Court has proven to be quite interesting – and somewhat disappointing. By a 4-3 majority, the court awarded attorney fees to the plaintiffs in Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthworks vs. Office of the Governor. This is certainly not an unheard-of occurrence; other cases have reached the same conclusion. In reaching this conclusion, the majority reversed the district court's denial of attorney fees. That's not unusual either. Here's what distinguishes this case in the eyes of the dissenting justices: The majority had the temerity to offer guidance in what has been a confusing and inconsistent area of the law. Here's the skinny: The plaintiffs asked the governor for copies of a wide range of documents. After about five months of dilly-dallying, the governor denied the request. The plaintiffs sued, relying on the right-to-know provision of the Montana constitution (Article II, Section 9). They won. When the plaintiffs filed to recover attorney fees for their litigation, district court denied the request. In the view of the district judge, the governor's Office 'did not act out of bad faith, indolence, or unreasonable delay.' This denial was at issue before the Supreme Court. In the 61 pages of ensuing verbiage, one nugget shines. It's a simple, single-sentence statute: 2-3-221. Costs to prevailing party in certain actions to enforce constitutional right to know. A person alleging a deprivation of rights who prevails in an action brought in district court to enforce the person's rights under Article II, section 9, of the Montana constitution may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees. In statutory interpretation, the word 'may' carries clear meaning: The district court has discretion to decide whether to award the costs and fees. In order to reverse that decision, the Supreme Court must determine that district court abused its discretion. At the onset of the majority opinion, Justice Laurie McKinnon wrote, 'When a party succeeds in litigation based on a right to know request, it has performed a public service in ensuring that Montana's government is appropriately transparent and accountable to the people.' This statement follows precedent in at least two other cases (Bozeman Daily Chronicle v. City of Bozeman Police Department (1993), Associated Press, et al. v. Montana Department of Revenue (2000)). So far, so good. On this basis, the majority took the next step: 'A presumption towards awarding fees when a plaintiff vindicates their constitutional right to know follows naturally in the context of the right.' This is what set the dissenters' teeth on edge. Justice Jim Rice's dissent said the majority 'abandons actual law and backfills the vacuum with its own creation made of whole cloth.' I don't see it. In fact, Justice James Jeremiah Shea pointed out that 'both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have long recognized, on a number of occasions, the necessity of creating frameworks to guide the discretion of lower courts in applying statutory awards of attorney fees.' Well, reasonable people can (and should) disagree. What puzzles me was Justice Rice's swerve into accusing the majority of bias against a Republican administration and partisan weaponizing of the law. Where did that come from? When Justice McKinnon took the unusual step of responding to Rice's 'highly inappropriate and unprofessional attack,' Chief Justice Cory Swanson weighed in. His self-proclaimed in-depth reading of Shea's dissent found 'nothing offensive or personal in his criticism.' I find that artificially ingenuous and doubly repugnant. McKinnon wrote a well reasoned majority opinion that furthers our understanding of the right to know. It deserves respect rather than ridicule. MEIC Earthworks right to know decision
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is it time to talk impeachment? Given Trump's actions, it may be overdue.
In the few months since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, he has issued so many executive orders and pronouncements on domestic and foreign policy that he may have overwhelmed our intellectual and emotional energy to fully appreciate their impact. Whether or not you approve of the direction he wants to take the country, he took office after being duly elected. Many of his initiatives are within his authority. Generally speaking, Trump has the right to indulge his ideological obsessions and advance policies that benefit the economic class that 'brung him to the dance.' But, what of those executive orders that exceed the limited authority proscribed for the presidency — powers meant to be shared with other branches of government, or those that defy Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution? Say goodbye to democracy — and our freedoms — if we ignore James Madison's warning in the Federalist Papers No. 47 that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump took the Presidential Oath of Office to 'faithfully execute the Office of President' and 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet just three months later, when asked if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that every person in the United States is entitled to due process, Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker that he's not so sure. 'I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.' The Constitution states that 'no person' shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' It says 'person,' not 'citizen.' Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has held that everyone in this country have certain basic rights. When Welker reminded the president of this constitutionally guaranteed right, Trump complained that this only slows him down: 'I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.' This helps explain why democracy requires an independent judiciary — to check the actions of the executive (from local police to presidents) to ensure that government allegations of wrongdoing are accurate and mistakes are not made. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the recent high-profile example, is Salvadoran, married to an American citizen with three American-born children who has lived in U.S. since 2011. He was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019. Nevertheless he was detained by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration originally acknowledged that he was mistakenly deported, and a federal judge ordered that he be returned to the U.S. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this directive. As of this writing the Trump administration has done nothing to facilitate his return. The President even quipped that he could do so, but he will not. The government now asserts that Abrego Garcia's deportation wasn't a mistake, claiming he is a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, but declines to provide evidence supporting the claim. As if to emphasize contempt for constitutional rights, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller recently said that the Trump administration was considering suspending Habeas Corpus to block an immigrant's right to challenge their detention before being deported. There are other examples of presidential defiance of the law, such as the illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized appropriations and constitutional freedoms. So, it is time to insert the 'I' word (impeachment) into civic conversations. I am not naïve: impeachment is neither imminent nor likely — for now. The disgrace of this period, as future historians will note, is that whether the President has intimidated Congress into silence or they applaud his overly expansive use of power, the legislative branch has abandoned its oversight responsibility. For now, Congress is content to look the other way. Nevertheless, we must begin to insert 'impeachable offenses' into civic conversations. If we don't, we will be complicit in accepting that the aberrant behavior of this President is the new normal for the evaluation of future presidents. Howard L. Simon served as executive director of the ACLU of Florida from 1997-2018. He resides in Gainesville and is president of Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation, Inc. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Talk of impeachment hasn't come up. How long can that last? | Opinion
