Attorney Todd C. Bank really liked his Operation Desert Storm hat. Almost as much as Eastern District of New York Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis (left) disliked it. Bank, a sole practitioner in Queens, lost his constitutional claim that he had a right to wear jeans and a hat of his choice in court. Garaufis ruled that any desire to accessorize would occur outside of the Constitution and his court (or any other court for that matter).
Garaufis upheld the dress code as part of the “commonly shared mores of courtroom civility,” and did not encroach upon rights protected under the First or 14th amendments in Bank v. Katz, 08-CV-1033.
Bank objected to the rule when he appeared pro se in an ongoing dispute with his landlord before Queens Civil Court Judge Anne Katz. During oral arguments in March 2008, Bank requested that he be allowed to “exercise his rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by wearing a baseball hat” that read “Operation Desert Storm.” When she said no and the clerk instructed him to remove the cap, he sued in federal court for a declaratory judgment in a challenge naming Katz and the clerk, Jude Albano under 18 U.S.C. 1983.
Garaufis ruled that “[w]hen he is not in court, Plaintiff is free to express the ideas he wishes to express, and to wear the attire he chooses to wear. When he is appearing as a litigant in civil court, however, he should expect that his choice of expressive attire will be limited in accordance with reasonable standards of courtroom decorum.”
Furthermore, the judge held that “in addition to being reasonable, restrictions on attire generally do not discriminate against any viewpoint . . . [t]here is no allegation that any restriction on Plaintiff’s attire was imposed based upon Plaintiff’s viewpoint. [T]he Complaint does not allege that the restriction on wearing [the hat] was based upon its message or viewpoint. Plaintiff does not allege, for example, that a Queens judge prohibited only Yankees hats from her courtroom, or that hats with pro-war messages were permitted while anti-war hats were not.” Well, sure, no one wants Yankee hats in a court of law. The Yankees are the antithesis of the concept of justice and equity. Now, a Chicago Cubs hat is a different matter . . .
Bank intends to appeal and insists “I’ve had cases that I’ve lost in my career and I knew that I should have lost, but this is not one of them.” Bank is a conservative who ran for the state legislature as a Republican and is a member of the Federalist society. He says that he specializes in litigating “junk faxes.” However, earlier litigation included an equally unsuccessful challenge to a $35 fee that his landlord assessed for a bounced check (as well as other alleged violations). That challenge was dismissed by Judge Jack B. Weinstein.
Lawyers have previously litigated the issue of dress codes, including a recent objection to an order of a white judge for an African-American lawyer to remove the kente cloth in court. D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert M. Scott told a defense attorney John T. Harvey III that he would have to remove himself or the cloth from the case, here. Likewise, Judge William Sosnay delayed courtroom proceedings for several hours because the prosecutor insisted on wearing an ascot rather than traditional neckwear, here.
While such displays are banned because they can be used to pander to a jury, even jurors are not allowed to wear their clothes of choice as in Whitewater juror Barbara Adams who showed up in a Starfleet Academy uniform, including commbadge, a phaser, and a tricorder. (The phaser was not banned as a weapon, but her outfit was challenged by the court).
The dress codes of courts are a bit impressionistic and clearly majoritarian. For example, a female lawyer (as shown in the ascot case) is generally given more leeway than males, who are expected to wear a tie (and not an open shirt) as well as a jacket in court. On the other hand, King County Superior Court Judge Jeanette Burrage was heavily criticized when she told Public defender Cindy Arends and Deputy Prosecutor Page Ulrey to both show up in skirts or not at all in court, here.
Bank insists that “[t]he respect a court gets should come from the court itself. As long as my conduct does not hinder the court’s ability to adjudicate disputes, I think it should be allowed.”
What do you think?
For the full story, click here.
Considering the moronic rationales some judges come up with as evidenced in this blawg, I wouldn’t care if the lawyers go to court naked….
What good or bad would it do anyway, especilly judges should show a clearer sense of priority…
Sometimes, I’ll do a closing in tighty whities and a manacle.
I understand courts requiring a certain dress code, such as a tie and no hat. I only wish that any dress code would apply to women as well as men, so that we women would know what judges and other senior attorneys consider appropriate! Sometimes they want skirt suits, but to wear a skirt suit, you have to wear heels, and they find some heels whorish and others unprofessionally masculine or chucky or too comfortable looking. If you wear a pant suit, some judges find it inappropriate. Women can’t wear ties but they get chastised for having open shirts. Women can’t button their shirts up or they seem stuffy. Women can’t wear crewneck tops because they are seen as less formal than button-up shirts, or has a sign that women have so much more leyway than men. It’s lose-lose for women’s wear, but at least all men know they are permitted to go without a baseball cap.
Oh the focus of the article.
Its the Judges Courtroom. As long as the rules are equally played for both sides. The Bitch (Gender Neutral) in the Black Dress makes the rules, however unreasonable.
I do know a judge (ret now) that would allow jeans and polo shirts on Fridays. He mellowed in his years I heard, but he always like me.
The Yankees are the antithesis of the concept of justice and equity. Now, a Chicago Cubs hat is a different matter . . .
*********************************
What has either team done this year? Oh they have made another play off for the ever doomed AL pennant. Can they do it? Yes, with the amount of money spent on 25 percent of the team equals 75 percent of all the other teams payroll. As hard as they try they just can’t get what they want. Sure more pennants that any other league. But, I am still not a fan.
Now Americas team Detroit Tigers. Two to cinch Central. Now that America dream Team
Which takes us to the Cubs? Better luck next year is the teams theme song at the beginning of the season. Or is that the opening Song that they play? 8.5 game out of a playoff birth. America has talent and it certainly is not wasted on the cubs, meow.
However, in defense of baseball. I would much rather watch a bad game than . . . . anything else.
The last two words of the National Anthem are as you know….PLAY BALL. Americas favorite past time.
Prof, Better luck next year with your cubs.
Litigants appear in court in jeans all the time. Why was this guy not permitted to?
I can see when appearing as a lawyer certain rules must be followed, including a dress code. But litigants have a wide latitude.
Or write.
“What is a Ute?”
“Excuse me, your honor. Yooouths.”
Off Topic Legal News:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/25/786540/-Phelps-Family-Cult-Wins!-Court-Throws-Out-Verdict
Mojo,
What were the “two Utes” wearing??
I think he should be able to wear whatever he likes in court.
But he gives up his right to practice law for the duration if he does so.
When Fred Gwynn admonished Joe Pesci in “My Cousin Vinny” for wearing his leather jacket in the courtroom, that seemed a fair charge.
Perhaps attorney Bank could be given precise alternatives to choose from.
A powdered wig.
Knickers
Or the ‘Hello-Dollyesque’ suit that Pesci wound up wearing in the ‘Cousin Vinny’ film.
I wonder if Bank is considering how his clients may feel being represented by a guy in a ball cap and jeans. I wouldn’t hire a guy who dressed like that. If I had a dentist who liked to wear sandals and a straw hat I would be equally concerned.
Perhaps Todd C. Bank should stick to Joseph A. Bank for his wardrobe needs.
This case smacks of someone trying to get his name in the paper. A card carrying member of the Federalist society that believes that the President has unlimited authority to torture people, but that the Judiciary doesn’t have the power to control the dress of litigants and their counsel doesn’t sound right. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think the answer is no unless the court grants leave to do so.
Is that guy Bill Clinton’s long-lost twin brother?
I was thinking about the staple case, and considered that the judge should have admitted he couldn’t judge the case fairly because he was prejudiced against counsel because of the wounds incurred due to improper stapling by said counsel. I don’t know if that would have been recusal, or a mistrial, or ‘holding over’, or what, I’m no lawyer. But dismissing the case was bogus.
Here there is a similar circumstance, handled more appropriately. But if the judge believes the casual attire of someone in court might inhibit a fair hearing, well, it is his courtroom, and there doesn’t seem to be anything unusual in insisting that someone remove his hat.
But I think it is worth noting that we’ve come full circle. Forty years ago, it would have been a liberal lawyer demanding the right to wear casual clothes (bell bottoms and a peace sign t-shirt, perhaps) in a court of law. Today, it is the conservative.
Mespo:
is it trivial? Perception is reality at least until you speak.
why is this an issue? wearing a suit and tie in a court room is a sign of respect for the rule of law. Lady Justice may be blind but the jury likes a well dressed advocate.
Too much time; too trivial a matter; too little sense.
Should the government be allowed to compel those who appear in proximity to the President to wear certain attire that meets government-set standards of decorum and respect for the office?