Justices remove judge from case for guns in court
Welch faces disciplinary hearing
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Monday removed Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chip Welch from a case regarding lawyers carrying guns into state and local courthouses, and scheduled a May 23 hearing on possible disciplinary action against him.
Last month, the high court, ruling 6-1 on an appeal of a 2023 Welch decision, found Arkansas lawyers are entitled by law to bring firearms into state and local courthouses. The justices then ordered Welch to issue an order to fit their ruling, which is standard procedure.
In a May 7 order in response to that mandate, Welch found that further proceedings would be necessary due to safety concerns.
Welch set an Aug. 1 hearing on the issue to allow interested parties, like the sheriff, to provide input. Welch has further asked that all “stakeholders” in courthouse safety, like police chiefs and representatives from district courts, also contribute about how to maintain public safety while ensuring that court operations are not interrupted.
In the meantime, Welch ruled that attorneys can bring guns into the Pulaski County Courthouse if they show proof of Arkansas Bar licensing. However, he restricted that access to the courthouse’s first-floor “common areas.” The courthouse has four stories with a basement, noting those other floors could bring armed lawyers into close proximity to jail inmates.
In his ruling, Welch referred to the Supreme Court’s order as “LOCO,” which stands for “Lawyer/ Officer-of-the-court Carry Opinion.”
“What expenses or renovations are involved, if any, to safely execute the LOCO mandate?” he wrote in one section.
Loco is Spanish for crazy. On Monday, the Supreme Court granted a request by attorneys Chris Corbitt of Conway, Clint Lancaster of Benton and Robert Steinbuch of Little Rock to remove Welch from the case.
The Supreme Court also vacated Welch’s May 7 order, saying he hadn’t followed their mandate.
“Much like when Eisenhower had to send in the 101st Airborne after Orval Faubus thumbed his nose at court-ordered desegregation, the Arkansas Supreme Court made clear who’s in charge after Judge Welch ignored the Supreme Court’s mandate,” said Steinbuch. “It’s
clear that the Court is called Supreme for a reason.”
The Supreme Court also issued a per curiam order in which it scheduled a May 23 hearing for Welch to address accusations that he violated judicial rules “in the tone, language, and issuance” of his May 7 order. Potential violations concern fairness, bias and “promoting confidence in the judiciary.”
“Judge Chip Welch is notified and provided an opportunity to be heard, if he chooses,” according to the order.
In a text message late Monday afternoon, Welch said he hadn’t received notice and couldn’t comment at that time.
The Pulaski County Circuit Court case, 6OCV-226976 will be assigned to another judge, and that judge must follow the Supreme Court’s earlier mandate, according to Monday’s Supreme Court ruling.
Steinbuch, a law professor, is also a plaintiff in the Pulaski County case with fellow attorney Ben Motal. It was their successful appeal of the 2023 Welch decision that led to the Supreme Court’s April 18 courthouse-guns decision.
They assert that all Welch was empowered to do by the
Supreme Court was issue an order aligned with the high court’s finding that Arkansas-licensed lawyers are “officers of the court” who are entitled to bring guns into state and local courthouses under a provision of Act 1087 of 2017. The law, codified as Arkansas 5-73-122, added “officers of the court” to laws addressing firearms in public buildings.
“(Welch) has ignored this court’s clear instructions and — remarkably and with derision — has stayed this court’s orders,” according to the petition.
According to Monday’s formal order, the petitioners asked for a writ to vacate Welch’s order, expedited consideration of their petition, and removal of the trial judge.
The Supreme Court granted all three.
Chief Justice Dan Kemp, Associate Justice Courtney Hudson and Associate Justice Karen Baker would deny expedited consideration, according to the order.
Also, Kemp and Hudson joined in a dissent of the per curiam order.
“Petitioners have not demonstrated a need for emergency relief that warrants moving this matter to the front of the line ahead of all other parties with business before this court,” Hudson wrote in her dissent.
“While unfortunate, the circuit judge’s alleged failure to comply with our mandate in the underlying case is not so extraordinary as to constitute an emergency.
“Furthermore, I am unclear as to the purpose of (Monday) order. If we agree with petitioners that the circuit judge has violated our mandate, we should simply grant all or part of the relief they have requested. Let me be clear, I do not condone the circuit judge’s disrespectful tone or the language used in his order. In fact, I share my colleagues’ discontent with the disparaging references. However, I question why our court has chosen to issue this order rather than to reprimand the judge in our ruling on the petition itself or to refer the judge to the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission as we have done in other cases.”
According to the per curiam order, “Although the dissent mentions that we have not afforded this to others, we believe extending an opportunity for due process and a hearing is prudent. If Judge Welch does not appear, the court will assume he has elected to not be heard on the matter. Judge Welch may elect to file a written response in lieu of an appearance; such a response, if any, must be filed by May 20, 2024, at 12:00 PM.”