Environmental groups ask Massa to recuse from Rockport case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Justice Mark Massa should recuse himself from hearing an Indiana Supreme Court appeal of a ruling that hindered a proposed multi-billion-dollar coal gasification plant in Rockport, several environmental and consumer groups argue in a brief filed in the case.

Massa’s 27-year relationship with project manager Mark Lubbers “would cause any ordinary objective observer to question whether he can remain impartial,” according to the motion for disqualification filed by Florida attorney Jerome Polk on behalf of Sierra Club, Citizens Action Coalition, Spencer County Citizens for Quality of Life and Save the Valley.

Massa so far has said nothing publicly about calls for his recusal, and Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said Wednesday Massa had no immediate response to the motion filed Tuesday.

“He is not required to reply to the motion,” Dolan said. “The code of judicial conduct prevents Justice Massa from commenting.” She said there was no immediate indication whether Massa would or would not disqualify himself from the case.

The motion also argues that proof of actual bias isn’t a prerequisite for recusal, citing as one precedent former Chief Justice Randall Shepard’s removal from former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson’s rape conviction appeal.

The brief also argues that “Lubbers has his personal fortune at stake in the outcome of this proceeding,” having been involved in the $2.7 billion project championed by former Gov. Mitch Daniels.  

Massa, a Daniels appointee to the Supreme Court who previously served as the former governor’s chief counsel, was hired in 1985 by Lubbers as a speechwriter for then-Gov. Robert Orr. Lubbers now is project manager for Rockport developer Indiana Gasification LLC’s parent, hedge fund Leucadia National Corp.

After the legislature earlier this year passed a bill that left the fate of the plant in the hands of the justices, creating the likelihood of a new round of state regulatory review, Lubbers announced that Indiana Gasification was suspending work on the project.

The motion cites an open letter from Lubbers to the media dated April 30 that said in part, “We will work hard for a win if the Supreme Court takes the case. … If the Supreme Court does not take the case, the project is dead … If the Supreme Court takes the case, we think we have a good chance of winning.”

Polk argues in the brief that Lubbers’ letter “is a clear ‘roadmap’ with his personal imprimatur stamped on it for how the Supreme Court could and should decide the case in order to give the project a chance. It reads like a personal message from Lubbers to Justice Massa which squarely puts the Court ‘on the spot’ to help Justice Massa’s mentor and benefactor.”

The brief also argues that the absence of Massa’s recusal to date despite widespread calls raises questions about his impartiality.

“This is a high-profile proceeding and the decision on whether or not Justice Massa should recuse is not just a question that Hoosiers will ask, but also a question as to what other States will say when they look to Indiana,” the motion asserts.

Exhibits establishing the connection between Lubbers and Massa and other arguments supporting the motion include copies of Lubbers’ comments at Massa’s formal robing ceremony, letters and emails from Lubbers to reporters, and media reports.




Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.