Jeff Atherton
Jeff Atherton is a chancellor for the Eleventh District Chancery Court, which presides over Hamilton County in Tennessee. He was elected to the court on August 5, 2010, and re-elected on August 7, 2014. His current eight-year term ends in 2022. He replaced retired Chancellor Howell Peoples.[1][2][3][4]
Atherton received national media attention following his decision to refuse a divorce following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide.
Elections
2014
See also: Tennessee judicial elections, 2014
Atherton ran for re-election to the Eleventh District Chancery Court.
Primary: He ran unopposed in the Republican primary on May 6, 2014.
General: He won without opposition in the general election on August 7, 2014.
[4][5]
Noteworthy cases
Divorce refused in light of same-sex marriage ruling
On August 28, 2015, Atherton refused to grant a divorce to a heterosexual couple, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.[6] The high court's ruling legalized marriages for same-sex couples nationwide after considering the following questions: "Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?" and "Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?"
In July 2015, Thomas and Pamela Bumgardner came before Atherton's court seeking a divorce. Both in their 60s, the couple cited "straying allegiances and irreconcilable differences" as the reason they sought a divorce. After hearing the arguments, Atherton told the couple that he would not grant their divorce, saying that the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges:
| “ | ...leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee' s judiciary must now await the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.[7] | ” |
| —Judge Jeff Atherton, (August 28, 2015)[6] | ||
Atherton dedicated three pages to the jurisdictional issue he perceived in light of the same-sex marriage ruling. He closed that portion of his decision, saying:
| “ | Although this Court has some vague familiarity with the governmental theories of democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, and even despotism, implementation of this apparently new " super -federal -judicial" form of benign and benevolent government, termed " krytocracy" by some and " judi-idiocracy" by others, with its iron fist and limp wrist, represents quite a challenge for a state level trial court. In any event, it should be noted that the victory of personal rights and liberty over the intrusion of state government provided by the majority opinion in Obergefell is held by this Court only to have divested subject matter jurisdiction from this Court when a divorce is contested. Individuals, at least according to the majority opinion, are apparently authorized ( along with the federal judiciary) to define when a marriage begins and, accordingly, ends, ( without the pesky intervention/intrusion of a state court) leaving irreconcilable divorces under Tenn. Code Ann. 36- 4- 101( 11), Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 4- 103, and perhaps even Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4- 129 to some degree ( but only when the grounds and/ or irreconcilable differences are stipulated), intact and within the jurisdiction of this Court to address.[7] | ” |
| —Judge Jeff Atherton, (August 28, 2015)[6] | ||
In the conclusion, Atherton cited the jurisdictional issue he outlined as the first basis for dismissing the Bumgardner's case. He provided three alternative bases relying on Tennessee state law, the doctrine of Unclean Hands and the couple's failure to comply with the Local Rules of Practice for the Eleventh Judicial District. The narrative conclusion provided before the judge's orders in the case did not reference the jurisdictional issue and focused on the conduct of the couple. Atherton stated:
| “ | Ultimately, based upon the evidence presented at trial and specifically the testimony of the parties themselves, the Court is not convinced that this marriage is irretrievably broken. The duration of the current separation and the distress associated with a lengthy trial are certainly obstacles that will need to be overcome. However, the law and the facts govern this decision.[7] | ” |
| —Judge Jeff Atherton, (August 28, 2015)[6] | ||
Education
Atherton received both his undergraduate and J.D. degrees from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville in 1984 and 1987, respectively.[1]
Career
Atherton worked as a private practice lawyer prior to his election to the Eleventh District Chancery Court in 2010.[1]
See also
External links
- Tennessee State Courts, "Trial Court Judges"
- Tennessee State Courts, "Tennessee Judicial District Map"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Tennessee State Courts, "Judge Jeffrey M. Atherton," accessed August 14, 2014
- ↑ Tennessee Secretary of State, "August 5, 2010 State General Election Results," accessed August 14, 2014
- ↑ Times Free Press.com, "Atherton wins election to chancery judgeship," August 6, 2010
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 TN.gov, "Tennessee Secretary of State Unofficial Election Results Hamilton County Elections," May 6, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ Go Vote TN, "August 7, 2014 Unofficial Election Results," accessed August 7, 2014
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 The Chattanoogan.com, "Ruling in Pamela E. Bumgardner v. Thomas A. Bumgardner," August 28, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
