Tennessee § 17-2-303 - Issuance of commission — Term.

§ 17-2-303. Issuance of commission — Term.

The supreme court is authorized to appoint senior judges only after it has made an affirmative finding that the effective administration of justice in one (1) or more judicial districts requires additional judicial resources. If the supreme court, at its discretion, determines that a former justice or judge is physically and mentally capable of performing valuable judicial service on a continuing basis and that the justice's or judge's service will promote the effective administration of justice, then the supreme court shall cause an appropriate commission to be issued under its seal for the period provided in subsection (c); provided, that such commission shall be issued only to a former justice or judge who left the justice's or judge's most recent term of judicial service in good standing with the board of judicial conduct or any successor to the board. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(3), no such commission shall be issued to any former justice or judge who, during the justice's or judge's most recent term of judicial service, sought reelection or retention but was defeated in the reelection or retention bid. Notwithstanding subdivision (b)(2), if the election following the most recent term of judicial service for a judge in a state court of record results in the judge not being reelected, the judge is authorized to be issued a commission if the judge has been elected at least twice and served at least two (2) full eight-year terms. The supreme court's designation shall be for a term of four (4) years unless the justice or judge has reached seventy (70) years of age, whereupon the term of the designation shall be for two (2) years or for any shorter period deemed proper by the supreme court. Senior justices and judges shall be eligible for reappointment. The supreme court's decision with regard to the initial designation or the renewal of senior designation is final and cannot be reviewed in any manner. Acts 1990, ch. 1025, § 3; 2002, ch. 639, § 3; 2016, ch. 1023, § 1; 2018, ch. 829, § 1. Code Commission Notes. Acts 2002, ch. 639, § 9 provided that, during fiscal year 2001-2002, that act shall be implemented exclusively from funds provided for the senior judge program by the provisions of Acts 2001, chs. 435 and 464. In subsequent fiscal years, the act shall not be construed or implemented in any manner that requires increased funding for the senior judge program beyond the rate of inflation. Amendments. The 2016 amendment rewrote subsection (b) which read: “If the supreme court, in its discretion, determines that a former justice or judge is physically and mentally capable of performing valuable judicial service on a continuing basis and that the justice's or judge's service will promote the effective administration of justice, then the supreme court shall cause an appropriate commission to be issued under its seal for the period provided in subsection (c); however, no such commission shall be issued to any former justice or judge who, during the justice's or judge's most recent term of judicial service, sought reelection or retention but was defeated in the reelection or retention bid.” The 2018 amendment added the proviso at the end of (b)(1). Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 1023, § 2. April 28, 2016. Acts 2018, ch. 829, § 2. April 27, 2018. Attorney General Opinions. Proposed legislation that gives the Tennessee Supreme Court the authority to appoint any former judge or justice who has at least one year of judicial service to serve as “a senior judge to hear complex commercial disputes” raises significant constitutional concerns. Unlike existing law, the proposed legislation would permit a former judge who has minimal judicial experience and who has never won a judicial election to serve in a judicial capacity. Such appointment would not be temporary but would be for a four-year term, renewable without limitation at the discretion of the Supreme Court. OAG 18-14, 2018 Tenn. AG LEXIS 15 (3/23/2018). The proposed legislation that would allow the Supreme Court to transfer complex commercial cases from the assigned trial court judge to a senior business judge does itself not raise constitutional concerns. It constitutes a specific grant of authority to transfer cases in furtherance of the Supreme Court’s existing supervisory authority. OAG 18-14, 2018 Tenn. AG LEXIS 15 (3/23/2018).