On Thursday, June 12, 2025, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission’s request to revise rules governing judicial conduct, allowing interim suspensions of judges and requiring cooperation with disciplinary investigations.

The decision, issued in a per curiam order by a five-member panel, introduced a new provision for suspending judges accused of serious crimes or misconduct and expanded an existing rule to prohibit intimidation and retaliation during probes.

The new suspension rule permits the Supreme Court to suspend judges with pay upon notice of formal charges, such as an indictment or complaint, accusing them of a “serious crime” under state or federal law. A serious crime is defined as any felony or lesser offense that undermines a judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness for office. This includes crimes like interference with justice, false swearing, fraud, bribery, extortion, theft, or attempts to commit such acts. Suspensions may also be imposed for other misconduct, including witness intimidation or threats of retaliation.

The rule, modeled on an American Bar Association policy, was specifically requested by the commission, which investigates judicial misconduct and recommends disciplinary actions.

The court also amended a rule requiring judges to cooperate fully with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies. The updated provision explicitly bans intimidation and retaliation against individuals known or suspected to have assisted in misconduct investigations. This rule applies to judges, justices, special judges, judicial candidates, and judges-elect.

Chief Justice Karen Baker and Associate Justice Courtney Hudson dissented from the order. In her dissent, Hudson argued that the suspension rule raises due process concerns, as it lacks requirements for notifying affected judges or allowing them to respond to allegations. She also suggested the rule might violate constitutional prohibitions against retroactive laws. Associate Justice Rhonda Wood, in a concurring opinion, countered that the rule enhances due process by establishing clear guidelines for suspensions, formalizing the court’s existing authority rather than creating new powers.

Judicial conduct has been a prominent issue for the Arkansas Supreme Court since September 2024, when five justices referred Hudson to the commission for allegedly breaching confidentiality by filing then-Chief Justice John Dan Kemp’s emails as evidence in a legal dispute over a Freedom of Information Act request. Baker, who dissented from Hudson’s referral, campaigned on transparency in her successful bid to replace Kemp, who did not seek reelection.

Tensions continued into 2025. After Baker took office on January 1, she clashed with five colleagues over her authority as chief justice, particularly regarding her attempts to dismiss 10 judiciary employees and appoint three new members to the disciplinary commission. Hudson was the only justice who did not oppose these actions.

Beyond the Supreme Court, judicial misconduct issues have surfaced elsewhere in Arkansas. In May 2025, former Monroe County district judge and deputy prosecutor T. David Carruth was sentenced to two years in federal prison for making false statements to the FBI. Carruth had previously been admonished by the commission in 2018 for violating the Judicial Code of Ethics.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.