Court Ruling Clears Path for Shekarchi’s Rhode Island Supreme Court Bid

A Providence County Superior Court ruling has cleared the way for Rhode Island state Rep. K. Joseph Shekarchi to remain in contention for an associate justice seat on the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Judge Richard Licht filed the decision July 27, ruling that Shekarchi was permitted to apply for the vacancy while serving in the House of Representatives. Shekarchi resigned as House speaker after applying but remains a state representative.

The decision does not nominate or appoint Shekarchi. The Judicial Nominating Commission, the governor and the General Assembly still have roles to play before a justice can be appointed.

What the judge decided

The case centered on Rhode Island’s revolving-door restrictions for elected officials. State law generally bars a state elected official, while holding office and for one year after leaving, from seeking or accepting employment with another state agency.

But Rhode Island General Laws § 36-14-5(n)(3) contains an exception for a state elected official “seeking or being elected for any other constitutional office.” Licht ruled that the Rhode Island Supreme Court qualifies as a constitutional office because it was created by the state Constitution rather than by ordinary statute.

The judge also ruled that the word “seeking” covers an application for appointment, not only a campaign for an elected position. The exception therefore permitted Shekarchi’s application to the Judicial Nominating Commission.

In the decision’s conclusion, Licht declared that Shekarchi was permitted to apply and that, if nominated and confirmed, he could serve on the Supreme Court without being deemed to have violated the Ethics Commission’s revolving-door regulations.

Why separation of powers mattered

Licht separately ruled that applying the Ethics Commission’s revolving-door regulations to Shekarchi’s Supreme Court application would violate separation-of-powers principles.

Article X, Section 4 of the Rhode Island Constitution establishes the process for filling Supreme Court vacancies. The Judicial Nominating Commission reviews applicants and submits a list, the governor nominates a candidate, and the Senate and House of Representatives provide separate advice and consent before an appointment can be completed.

Because the selection process is constitutionally authorized, Licht concluded that ethics regulations could not prevent Shekarchi from participating in it. The decision emphasized that its ruling is limited to a sitting legislator seeking the Supreme Court position. It said lower-court judgeships are treated differently and remain subject to the one-year restriction described in the decision.

The ethics case is a separate issue

The ruling followed an ethics complaint filed after Shekarchi applied for the Supreme Court vacancy. On June 2, the Rhode Island Ethics Commission voted 6-1 to initially determine that Complaint No. 2026-1 stated facts that, if true, could constitute violations of the Code of Ethics and to authorize an investigation.

The commission’s minutes state that the vote was preliminary and should not be understood as a finding that the allegations were true. The Superior Court decision also noted that the commission had not determined that Shekarchi’s application was an ethics violation.

Licht’s decision resolves the legal questions presented in Shekarchi’s case, but it does not erase the fact that the ethics complaint was investigated or answer every possible question about the complaint. The decision also may be subject to appeal. The sources reviewed for this article do not document that an appeal has been filed.

What happens next

The Judicial Nominating Commission’s process does not itself select a justice. It evaluates applicants and recommends candidates to the governor. The governor then chooses a nominee from the commission’s list, subject to separate advice and consent by the Senate and House of Representatives.

The commission’s agenda scheduled a public-comment and interview meeting for the Supreme Court vacancy on July 28, one day after Licht filed his decision. The ruling and the meeting are separate steps; the sources reviewed for this article do not establish a later recommendation, gubernatorial selection or legislative confirmation.

Rhode Island Current and The Boston Globe reported that Shekarchi was among five applicants being considered for the vacancy. The other candidates identified in that reporting were Christopher Bush, Judge Laureen D’Ambra, Judge Luis Matos and John Roberts.

As of July 31, the court ruling has removed the immediate legal barrier to Shekarchi’s participation in the selection process. It has not produced a nominee, an appointment or a final resolution of every ethics or appellate issue.

Why the decision matters to residents

The case affects how Rhode Island balances ethics restrictions with the constitutional process for choosing members of its highest court. The ruling allows a sitting legislator to pursue the position while preserving the later roles of the Judicial Nominating Commission, the governor and the General Assembly.

Those stages will determine whether Shekarchi remains under consideration, receives a nomination or wins confirmation. The ethics complaint and any possible appeal are separate matters residents can continue to track as Rhode Island fills a seat on the court that interprets state laws affecting government, schools, health care, businesses and individual rights.

Sources

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.