Coming Soon
Summary (Optional)
Prefer audio? Listen to a short neutral overview. Then review the full details and sources below.
Quick Summary
- Brad Mendheim is the incumbent justice seeking another term on the Alabama Supreme Court.
- He has served on the court since 2019 and is running for Place 7.
- Before joining the court, he worked as a circuit judge, district judge, and prosecutor.
- This office matters because the Alabama Supreme Court can affect criminal cases, elections, property disputes, constitutional questions, and how state law is applied across Alabama.
This page uses public sources and stays neutral. Review the links and decide what matters most to you.
Party: Republican
Overview
Brad Mendheim is an incumbent justice on the Alabama Supreme Court. This is the state’s highest court, and it decides cases that can affect criminal justice, civil disputes, elections, the powers of state government, and how the Alabama Constitution is interpreted.
Mendheim has a long legal background, including time as a circuit judge, district judge, and prosecutor. In a judicial race, the record matters more than campaign talk. Voters often look at the kinds of cases a judge has handled, how that judge writes opinions, and what supporters and critics say about those decisions.
Key opinions and dissents
This is a different kind of race. In a court race, the most important questions are often about the cases a judge has decided and the legal themes that show up in those rulings.
-
Arbitration and contract disputes
In cases such as Terminix Int'l v. St. Paul’s Episcopal Church and Franklin Structures v. Williams, the dispute turned on whether parties had agreed to resolve disagreements through arbitration instead of court. Mendheim wrote majority opinions upholding those clauses and treating the contract language as controlling. Supporters say this gives businesses and consumers clear rules and reduces costly litigation. Critics argue that the court can enforce contract terms so aggressively that ordinary people have fewer options when they want to challenge a dispute in public court. For Alabama voters, this matters because it helps shape how many civil cases are resolved and which disputes are sent to private arbitration instead of the court system. -
Procedure and jurisdiction
In Moore v. State ex rel. Sims and Ex parte Spalding, the issue was not a broad policy disagreement but whether the legal process had been followed correctly. Mendheim treated missing procedural steps as a serious barrier, saying the court could not act without the required authority or filing requirements. Supporters say this protects the rule of law and keeps judges from ignoring the limits placed on them by statute. Critics argue that strict procedural rulings can sometimes bar legitimate claims for reasons that feel technical or harsh, especially when the issue is more about process than substance. For voters, this matters because procedural rules can determine whether a case reaches the merits and whether a person can get their day in court. -
IVF and constitutional questions
In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, the court considered whether frozen embryos could be treated as “unborn children” under Alabama’s wrongful death law. The majority opinion drew national attention because it linked the issue to the state’s constitutional and statutory framework in a way that affected reproductive medicine and family law. Mendheim did not sign onto the broadest reasoning of the majority, but he concurred in the result, meaning he supported the outcome without fully embracing the broader legal argument. Supporters see that as careful judicial restraint and respect for the text of the law. Critics say the ruling reflected a far-reaching conservative approach to constitutional interpretation that could have major consequences for reproductive rights and state power. For Alabama voters, this matters because it shows how a state supreme court can influence major social and legal questions even when the legislature is not acting. -
Concurring with limits and dissents
In Ibach v. Stewart, the court addressed sanctions against an attorney who filed briefs with fabricated citations generated by artificial intelligence. Mendheim agreed the conduct was serious, but he disagreed with parts of the court’s broader language and rhetoric, writing separately on the issue. Supporters say this shows measured judgment and a willingness to push back when the court goes too far in describing misconduct. Critics argue it also highlights how the court sometimes uses a narrower lens on legal ethics and public trust issues, especially when professional misconduct is tied to the credibility of filings. For voters, the takeaway is simple: judicial opinions do not just decide disputes; they also help define what standards of legal professionalism and court credibility the state will enforce.
Why This Office Matters
The Alabama Supreme Court does not write most laws the way the legislature does. Instead, it decides how laws and the Alabama Constitution apply in real disputes. That can affect criminal cases, election disputes, contract cases, property rights, and the powers of state and local government.
For voters, this race is not just about a candidate’s résumé. It is also about how a justice may interpret the law when major questions are raised in court.
Things to Think About
- How much should voters focus on a judge’s experience versus the actual cases they have decided?
- Should judges follow the law strictly as written, or should they consider broader realities when applying it?
- How should voters weigh a judicial record that is shaped by a group of justices, not just one person?
- What role should the state’s highest court play when legal disputes involve voting rights, civil rights, or criminal justice?
- Which kinds of court decisions matter most to you when deciding a Supreme Court race?
Sources
Sources reviewed: Loading...
Source mix: Loading...