Video & Transcript Research : 'judiciary'
Page 2 of 205
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 13 March, 2025; 9:30 AM.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division B - Room 216, 4 March, 2025; 4:25 PM
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 4 March, 2025; 2:15 P.M.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 4 March, 2025; 9:00 A.M.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division B - Room 216, 27 February, 2025; 2:00 PM
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division A - Room 216, 27 February, 2025; 3:00 PM
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 4 February, 2025; 9:00 A.M.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 4 February, 2025; 2:00 P.M.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division 4 - Room 409, 4 February, 2025; 4:00 P.M.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 4 February, 2025; 8:30 A.M.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 30 January, 2025; 3:45 P.M.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division A - Room 216, 30 January, 2025; 3:00 PM
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 29 January, 2025; 9:00 A.M.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division A - Room 409, 28 January, 2025; 2:00 P.M.
MS
Mississippi 2025 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division B - Room 216, 28 January, 2025; 4:15 PM
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- I'm proud of how we've developed the culture of innovation at the Judiciary.
- to report the Judiciary is...
- I'm pleased to report the Judiciary is strong, resilient, and thriving.
- It is wonderful to hear that the state of the Judiciary is strong and thriving.
- problems of people you led the Judiciary problems of people you led the Judiciary with with with
MS
Mississippi 2026 Regular Session
Judiciary, Division A (Part 2) - Room 409, 3 March, 2026; 4:15 P.M.
Judiciary, Division A
Transcript Highlights:
- I'll call Judiciary A to order.
- So in short, this has been provided to us and Judiciary A not ahead of time, and we're at a point where
- provided to us this is this has been provided to us and<00:06:43.440>
and <00:06:43.720>judiciary - <00:06:44.600>
A and and judiciary A and and judiciary A not<00:06:46.040>ahead <00 - For the last definitely three years in Judiciary A, I've gotten a version of these bills, multiple bills
Summary:
The committee first took up House Bill 1752, which had already passed Judiciary A, gone to Appropriations, and returned with an amendment. The chair explained that the amendment froze a rate increase that had been included by LBR and instead set the amount at $150,100 on a two-year schedule for further review. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the bill on a title-sufficient-do-pass motion.
The committee then considered House Bill 1603, described as a cleanup measure related to last year’s squatters law. Counsel explained that it removed language stating that a squatter who commits trespass or remains on another person’s property shall not accrue property rights based on that conduct. After a brief question about what the bill removed, the committee passed it on a title-sufficient-do-pass motion.
The main discussion centered on House Bill 1224, a strike-all for the Keeping Kids Safe Online Act, which the chair described as a revised version of the Walker Montgomery law. The chair said the original House bill raised serious constitutional concerns, especially around age verification, First Amendment issues, and overbreadth, and noted Justice Kavanaugh’s comments in the Walker Montgomery litigation suggesting the prior law was likely unconstitutional. He said the strike-all would create a task force, include a reverse repealer, and use language modeled on laws in Florida and Virginia, with the goal of producing a bill that could withstand legal challenge. Several senators questioned whether the committee should move forward with a bill that might still be vulnerable, while others emphasized the need to protect children online and referenced Mr. Montgomery’s advocacy and the book Anxious Generation. The chair said industry representatives from Google, Facebook, TikTok, and NetChoice had expressed willingness to discuss a workable compromise, and he indicated the committee could still go to conference and potentially return to the House version if needed.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- All right, welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee hearing of the session.
- Kim, testifying for the judiciary. >> Good morning, Chair Rhoads.
- DS Kim, testifying for the judiciary. DS Kim, testifying for the judiciary.
- <00:15:23.680>
This the judiciary for this measure. This the judiciary for this measure. - >
periodic <00:30:02.159>meetings judiciary does have um periodic meetings judiciary does
Keywords:
civil rights, helpline, investigator, data analysis, Aloha United Way, reporting, confidentiality, community support, mandatory retirement, Hawaii Constitution, judiciary, justices, judges, 912, senate, all
Summary:
The Judiciary Committee heard SB 2055, which would create a Civil Rights Commission helpline for reports of harms from federal deployments in Hawaii and require annual reporting and a public hearing. The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission supported the concept but said the bill should be broadened to cover civil rights and human rights violations more generally, and recommended using existing 211/Aloha United Way infrastructure. Testimony was largely in support, with a few opponents. Members focused on whether the proposed line was really a 24-hour legal hotline or a reporting/referral mechanism, what jurisdiction the commission would have over federal employees, and the estimated costs. The committee chair indicated the bill would move forward with amendments, including adopting HCRC recommendations and adding appropriations for Aloha United Way, database/website development, and staffing.
The committee then heard SB 2152, a proposed constitutional amendment to raise the mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices from 70 to 75. Judge Robert D.S. Kim, the Office of the Public Defender, Earthjustice, Community Alliance on Prisons, the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers, United Public Workers, the League of Women Voters, ILWU Local 142, CARES, and others testified in support, arguing that experienced judges improve stability, reduce vacancies, and preserve institutional knowledge. Opponents or skeptical comments were limited, but one member questioned whether the measure was just a temporary fix rather than a broader solution to judicial succession and mentoring.
Members also asked about existing retention and fitness safeguards, including Judicial Selection Commission retention hearings and the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s ability to investigate complaints about a judge’s physical or mental ability to serve. The discussion noted that the measure would still leave those processes in place. No final vote on SB 2152 was taken in the portion provided, but the committee appeared to be moving toward decision-making after questions concluded.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee 3/5/26
Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
Transcript Highlights:
- Welcome to the Judiciary, Finance, and Civil Law Committee.
- So home security is something certainly on the mind of our judiciary.
- So home security is something certainly on the mind of our judiciary.
- on the mind of our judiciary. on the mind of our judiciary.
- <00:36:09.920>
and be understanding of the judiciary and be understanding of the judiciary
Keywords:
judicial funding, Chief Justice security, fiscal year 2028, court system, judicial branch, judiciary, court notices, restitution, child protection, publication process, human services, Optum reports, data privacy, transparency, legislative oversight, 1183, house
Summary:
The committee approved the March 3 minutes and then heard a presentation from the Minnesota Judicial Branch on House File 3874, which was laid over for possible inclusion in a finance bill. State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba and Chief Judge Michael Fritz testified in support of a supplemental funding request focused on judicial branch safety and security, along with funding to cover the employer share of Minnesota Paid Leave costs. Shorba said the branch is seeking help because it did not receive funding for paid leave in the last session and is having to hold positions open to absorb the cost.
The safety and security request included five parts: personal data protection for judges and court administrators, home security, two additional staff positions for threat assessment and coordination, security for the chief justice at public events, and a revived courthouse security grant program for counties. Testimony emphasized rising threats and incidents involving judges and court staff, including examples of doxing, home surveillance, and threats involving litigants, and cited increases in reported incidents, threats, and disturbances. Fritz said the branch’s current response system is stretched and that more law-enforcement-trained staff would improve coordination and response.
Members questioned why the judicial branch should receive state funding for paid leave when private employers must absorb the cost, and Shorba responded that the branch was excluded from end-of-session funding decisions and that the mandate should be funded for all branches of government. Members also asked about the threat-response process and whether local law enforcement should be used more directly. Another concern raised was whether State Patrol troopers assigned to judicial security would have the training needed for criminal-code enforcement, and Shorba said the branch is discussing that issue with the State Patrol. No vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.
NM