Advisory Opinions: "Merry Christmas to the State Courts"

Podcast: Advisory Opinions by The Dispatch
Date: December 25, 2025
Hosts: Sarah Isgur & David French
Guests:

• Justice Evan Young, Texas Supreme Court
• Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, Florida Supreme Court
• Judge Josh Deahl, DC Court of Appeals

Episode Overview

This special holiday episode spotlights the unsung importance of state supreme courts in American justice. While Advisory Opinions often covers the U.S. Supreme Court, hosts David French and Sarah Isgur devote this episode to exploring the nuanced, impactful, and varied world of state high courts. The episode features an in-depth roundtable with three state supreme court justices, highlighting differences in court structures, judicial selection, dockets, and broader issues such as originalism, judicial elections, access to justice, and the effect of artificial intelligence on the courts.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why State Supreme Courts Matter

• State courts handle the vast majority of legal cases, with the state supreme court as the court of last resort for most litigants ([00:24], Sarah Isgur).
• The composition and decisions of state supreme courts often have greater day-to-day impact on individuals and businesses than the U.S. Supreme Court ([01:23], David French).

2. Judicial Selection: Elections, Appointments, and Tenure

Texas (Justice Evan Young)

• Texas justices are typically appointed to fill vacant seats but must win partisan elections later to stay on the bench ([06:37], Justice Young).
  • “I had three months and four days from when I took the oath ... before the voters of Texas had their chance to decide whether I crawled back to my law firm and hope they hadn’t given my office away yet or got to stick around...” ([06:37])
• Texas Supreme Court handles only civil (and juvenile criminal) matters; adult criminal matters go to a separate court ([07:28], Justice Young).
• Judges must campaign statewide, a process marred by low voter information and ballot quirks ([57:24], Justice Young).

Florida (Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz)

• Uses a nominating commission with gubernatorial appointment; retention elections are nonpartisan, up-or-down votes ([12:09], Muñiz).
  • “All of the members ... are appointed by the governor but a subset of them have to be people who are nominated ... by the Florida Bar.” ([12:09])
• No appellate judge has lost a retention election since the system began ([12:09]).

District of Columbia (Judge Josh Deahl)

• The DC Court of Appeals is not called a “supreme court”; judges are nominated by a commission, appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and reviewed every 15 years by a local commission ([17:27], Judge Deahl).
• “Unlike my colleagues here, we do not have discretionary review ... we are the intermediate and the final court of appeals in DC” ([17:27]).

3. Court Structures, Docket Management, and Case Types

• Texas: High discretion in hearing cases: “99.9% of the cases ... we call it a petition for review, it’s exactly the same as a cert petition.” ([08:18], Justice Young)
• Florida: Discretionary docket triggered by conflicts, certified questions, and certain mandatory areas like death penalty appeals; court sets procedural rules ([15:42], Muñiz).
• DC: No discretionary review; hears all appeals as of right; high case volume with judges running panels/en banc as needed ([20:21], Judge Deahl).

Unique Texas Development: Business Courts

• Texas recently established a business court:
  • Appointed judges (not elected) for complex business disputes
  • “A lot of businesses are paying attention to it ... all signs are positive about the work of the business court.” ([09:49], Justice Young)

4. Constitutions, Originalism, and Interpreting State Law

• State constitutions change far more often than the U.S. Constitution, making “originalism” more complex ([25:51], Justice Young; [28:46], Muñiz).
  • “I've actually decided cases in which I was a ratifier … that creates kind of an odd question…” ([26:58], Young)
  • “We do have frequent amendments ... there are things put in the constitution that are really more at the level of detail of statute.” ([28:46], Muñiz)
• DC’s quasi-constitution, the Home Rule Act, is treated much like statutory interpretation ([32:50], Judge Deahl).

5. AI and Technology in the Courts

• Judge Deahl is “bullish” on AI’s potential for efficiency. Uses AI for tasks like video analysis; warns about reliability and “hallucinations” ([35:21], Judge Deahl).
  • “It can basically serve as an extra law clerk … If the chatbot can do it in a couple minutes what it takes my clerks a couple weeks … that’s valuable.” ([35:21])
• Pro se litigants are increasingly using AI to file credible briefs ([43:42], Judge Deahl).

6. Access to Justice

• Justice Young: System-wide strength benefits all; access isn’t just for the poor, but integral to confidence in the judiciary ([38:36], Young).
  • “If the people of Texas … do not believe that the judiciary of Texas is able to expeditiously and efficiently and fairly hear them … then they will lose confidence in the judiciary…” ([38:36])
• AI as a potential tool for unrepresented parties; risks and opportunities discussed ([43:42], Judge Deahl).
• Chief Justice Muñiz: State courts bear immediate responsibility for public access and administration – more so than federal courts ([45:28], Muñiz).

7. Courtroom Practice, Clerking, and Careers in State Courts

• Candor is the most impressive quality at oral argument ([46:38], Muñiz).
• Advantages of clerking for a state high court:
  • Texas Supreme Court clerks attend conferences and see deep internal deliberation ([47:47], Young).
  • “For a lawyer who wants to be a Texas lawyer at least, that’s … one heck of a turbocharge.” ([47:47], Young)

8. Forum Preferences: Why Litigants Choose Federal Over State Court

• Judge Deahl: Defendants often prefer federal court due to perceptions of fairness, resources, and backlog differences ([50:59], Judge Deahl).
• Discussion on perceptions versus reality regarding judge quality, docket management, and jury pools ([52:02], Deahl).

9. Judicial Elections: Pros, Cons, and Realities

• Justice Young: Texas citizens fiercely defend judicial elections—sometimes to the detriment of judicial quality, as many voters are uninformed ([57:24], Young).
  • “The people of Texas demand absolute control over who all their judges are, and the people of Texas demand to know almost nothing about who any of their judges are.” ([57:24], Young)
• Judicial reform is politically challenging; attempts at change often fail due to public distrust of “elite” selection methods ([59:57], Young).
• Notable Texas story: A justice elected due to a favorable ballot name and then indicted, fleeing to Grenada ([58:26], Young).

10. Audience Q&A Highlights

• AI abuse concerns: Both Texas and Florida are sticking with current judicial discipline/pleading rules; no special regulation of AI at this time.
  • “It’s tough to get judges to use the tools that they have ... we don’t really view it as anything that the existing sort of tools … can’t handle.” ([54:42], Muñiz)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the overlooked power of state courts:
  “The Supreme Court was just ... like watching cable news at night ... whereas the state supreme courts were: this matters for my job, … my clients’ lives.”
  – David French ([01:23])

• Texas judicial elections, candidly:
  “The people of Texas demand absolute control over who all their judges are, and ... demand to know almost nothing about who their judges are.”
  – Justice Evan Young ([57:24])

• On AI’s promise and peril:
  “I can see it ... I put it into a chatbot and ... that’s actually excellent analysis ... I think you have to approach [AI] with a great deal of skepticism.”
  – Judge Josh Deahl ([35:21])

• On the access to justice system:
  “Everyone has an interest, I should hope ... in ensuring that confidence in the judiciary ... both that it is perceived as being good and that it actually is.”
  – Justice Evan Young ([38:36])

• On judicial candor:
  “Candor always impresses me ... just acknowledging that you’re speaking to people who have to eventually make a decision ... especially ... where smart people, conscientious people, have disagreed ... help us resolve it.”
  – Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz ([46:38])

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Opening/Theme: [00:19]
• State Court vs. Federal Court: Why it matters: [00:24] – [02:20]
• Introductions of state supreme court justices: [04:20] – [05:36]
• Judicial selection and election systems: [06:37] – [13:01]
• Composition of dockets in TX/FL/DC: [07:21], [13:09], [17:16]
• Texas Business Courts: [09:42] – [11:43]
• Historical changes to courts’ dockets/discretion: [21:40]
• Originalism and state constitutions: [25:51] – [32:47]
• AI, technology & court efficiency: [35:10] – [37:25]
• Nuclear verdicts, plaintiff bar trends: [37:27]
• Access to justice concerns & system integrity: [38:36] – [46:30]
• Success at oral argument: [46:30] – [47:41]
• Clerking: career advice: [47:41] – [50:11]
• Why litigants try to avoid state courts: [50:22] – [53:43]
• Q&A: Policing AI abuse, judicial elections: [54:06] – [61:56]
• Closing thoughts on judicial elections & reform: [57:24] – [62:33]

Tone & Style

• Lighthearted, collegial, and sometimes irreverent—imbued with legal insight, candor, and a bit of Texas humor (beef fajitas! [11:43], Sarah Isgur).
• Panelists engage in self-deprecation and behind-the-scenes commentary—Judge Deahl jokes about his mother misunderstanding his job, Young’s “feet of clay” metaphor, and the recurring Texas anecdotes.

Takeaways

This episode is a rare, illuminating dive into the world of state high courts—a world shaping most Americans’ legal experience but rarely spotlighted. The justices’ candor about the quirks, challenges, and opportunities in their courts—along with the emerging importance of technology and the perennial debate over judicial selection—makes for essential listening (or reading) for anyone concerned with the machinery of American justice.