In an opinion more remarkable for its castigating tone than for the question of law it settled, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille last week delivered a broadside to fellow Justice Joan Orie Melvin, questioning her logic, her understanding of constitutional law and accusing her of "the height of judicial activism" during her first month on the bench.

Whether it's a one-time warning shot or a signal of friction to come is anyone's guess.

"I haven't seen anything quite like this in a Supreme Court opinion in Pennsylvania in a long, long time," said Robert Byer, former Commonwealth Court judge and head of the appellate practice at Philadelphia-based Duane Morris.

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that said the state Judicial Conduct Board must provide the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice -- the state panel that is probing the Luzerne County kids-for-cash scandal -- with a confidential complaint that was made against former Common Pleas Judge Michael Conahan.

The board argued that the Interbranch Commission should not be given access to the complaint because the commission has no law enforcement authority, but the high court disagreed. However, in its majority opinion, the Supreme Court said that distribution of the complaint won't be viewed by the public or the media, meaning it's under seal.

The majority ruling, a minor opinion on a procedural matter, would have been unexceptional if not for Justice Castille's response to Justice Orie Melvin's concurring-and-dissenting opinion. Justice Castille and Justice Orie Melvin are both Republicans, and her ascension to the Supreme Court this year gave the GOP a 4-3 edge on the bench.

"The tone of the chief justice's opinion was extraordinarily pointed and blunt. He attacked Justice Orie Melvin's opinion with a verbal sledgehammer. Appellate judges rarely do that," said John M. Burkoff, professor at University of Pittsburgh's School of Law.

In her four-page opinion, Justice Orie Melvin said she disagreed "with the majority's holding that these complaints must be kept under seal."

The conduct board, she wrote, "should not be permitted to hide behind the veil of confidentiality when it will not even acknowledge what investigation, if any, occurred in this matter ... Just who or what are we protecting by maintaining confidentiality in this matter?"

The sharp-tongued Justice Castille, sometimes compared to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, responded forcefully, devoting an entire section to Justice Orie Melvin:

• "The core and unifying difficulty with the [Justice Orie Melvin's opinion] is that it is disconnected from the actual litigation, the constitutional language, and precedent. Thus, the [opinion] poses questions that are not presented by the parties, and exaggerations that are not fairly implicated."

• "The [opinion's] approach [is] the opposite of strict construction and the height of judicial activism."

• "At bottom, whatever merit and internal 'logic' the [opinion's] view of the judicial disciplinary system as it presently exists might have as a political tract, a 'what-should-be editorial,' or as an outline of one idiosyncratic view of the way that judicial investigations should operate, it is a demonstrably off-point response to the dispute actually presented to this Court, the plain constitutional language that actually exists, the obvious complexities involved, and our precedent interpreting the constitutional language."

• And, finally: "Our task is different from that of the litigant, the politician, or the editorialist, and it is inevitably less understood and often less popular. Our sworn task is to apply the law; and in so doing we cannot ignore, rewrite or torture settled language and propositions, and then apply that construct retroactively without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, in order to reach a perceived favored conclusion."

It's not unusual for one justice to address another's arguments, but usually it's done more tactfully, or with footnotes. Judicial observers said this sort of inter-court torpedo is rare, and none could remember a similar opinion in recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court history. Opinions can be revised and edited, meaning that both judges would have had an opportunity to change their opinions to minimize the appearance of high court friction. Neither evidently did.

"In the chief justice's defense, in his view, Justice Orie Melvin had committed the cardinal sin of judging: She ignored the law and precedent, and simply shot from the hip," said Mr. Burkoff.

"That's not what judges are supposed to do. And since he believed that's exactly what she was doing, that's apparently what made him so angry."

Mr. Byer said it reminded him of less amicable days on the state Supreme Court, when political and personal differences made for some entertaining opinions under former Chief Justices Robert N.C. Nix Jr. and John Flaherty.

He said he hopes ideological fissures won't overshadow legal issues going forward.

"Lost in this is this critical situation in Luzerne County that needs to be addressed," Mr. Byer said. "I just hope that people keep their eye on the ball ... I don't want to see the court become less collegial. [We] suffered through that in Pennsylvania for a number of years."

Justice Orie Melvin won her high court seat in November and took to the bench in January. She campaigned on the issue of judicial corruption in Luzerne County and has criticized the high court in the past for approving the legislative and judicial pay raise of 2005.

For Justice Orie Melvin, it's been a winter filled with politics. Allegheny County District Attorney Steve Zappala is targeting her sister, Republican state Sen. Jane Orie, for campaign work she did for Justice Orie Melvin's Supreme Court campaign. The issue is whether she had employees do campaign work on state time.

Meanwhile, Ms. Orie says she wants an audit of the district attorney's brother, who is connected to the very same Luzerne County judicial corruption case that the Supreme Court ruled on last week.

Gregory Zappala owns Western Pennsylvania Child Care in Butler County and Pennsylvania Child Care in Luzerne County. Mr. Zappala's former business partner, Robert Powell, is facing criminal charges in the "kids-for-cash" scheme, but so far, Mr. Zappala is not.

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.