ILNews

Massa mum on Rockport recusal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One of the first cases on the Indiana Supreme Court’s fall oral argument calendar also could be among its most controversial and biggest in terms of potential dollars at stake.

Justices may determine the fate of a proposed $2.7 billion Rockport coal gasification plant championed by former Gov. Mitch Daniels. A divided Court of Appeals has voided a key state contract, and lawmakers this year in the session’s waning days reversed course in their support for the plant, prompting developers to announce a suspension of work on the project.

massa Massa

The appeal, Indiana Gas Company, Inc. v. Indiana Finance Authority, 93S02-1306-EX-407, is set for oral argument at 9 a.m. Sept. 5. But outside the arguments in court, an argument is brewing in the court of public opinion: whether Justice Mark Massa is too close to one of the key players and therefore should disqualify himself.

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

Lubbers spoke at Massa’s robing ceremony in May 2012 and talked about hiring Massa. “Thus began, 27 years ago, a web of opportunities and relationships that would culminate here this afternoon,” Lubbers said during the ceremony.

Massa hasn’t spoken publicly about his intentions, and Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said judicial canons forbid him from commenting on a pending case. But Massa has drawn criticism in newspaper editorial pages, from plant opponents and other quarters for failing to step aside already.

Dolan said Massa hasn’t indicated whether he will or won’t hear the case.

“Whatever decision any justice makes about recusal in any case, there is no specific timeline for justices to recuse,” she said. “It’s up to the judge’s discretion.”

At IL deadline, no formal motion had been filed requesting Massa disqualify himself. “Courts move through formal procedure,” Dolan said.

John Blair, director of Evansville-based ValleyWatch, one of several environmental groups opposing the plant in amicus briefs, said the group is leaning toward filing a formal request for recusal. But, he said, parties shouldn’t have to because of the public calls and the expectation of an unbiased judiciary.

Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct says a judge shall disqualify “in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

“I can’t understand why Massa hasn’t recused himself,” Blair said, noting the public calls that he and others have made for him to disqualify from the case. Lubbers, Blair said, “brought him into state government and used to pal around with him all over the Statehouse.

“It’s more than an appearance of conflict. It is a conflict,” Blair said.

Attorney Jerome Polk represents ValleyWatch and other amici including the Sierra Club, Citizens Action Coalition and Spencer County Citizens for Quality of Life. He said the groups have not ruled out filing a formal motion.

“The canon seems pretty clear,” Polk said, “that the obligation (to disqualify) exists whether a motion has been filed or not. From a purely hypothetical perspective, when a judge is in that position, they shouldn’t wait for a motion to be filed.”

Blair noted that requiring an attorney to file a formal motion requesting a justice’s disqualification is likely to place that lawyer in an awkward position before a court of last resort.

Dolan said that while there have been calls for Massa to publicly step aside, it’s not unusual for justices to say nothing even if they do plan to recuse themselves. “It becomes apparent the day of oral argument,” she said, when a justice simply doesn’t appear.

That’s more the norm in such cases, Dolan said. If Massa did speak to the controversy, she said, that would be more unusual, considering Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.10 that governs judicial statements on pending cases. Rule 2.10(A) states, “A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court.”

Dolan also noted Rule 2.7 regarding a judge’s responsibility to decide. A comment in the canon regarding the rule notes that while disqualification is required in some instances, a judge should “not use disqualification to avoid cases that present difficult, controversial, or unpopular issues.”

Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charles Geyh writes and teaches on judicial conduct, ethics and accountability. He said whether Massa chooses to recuse himself isn’t necessarily clear-cut.

Recusal “depends in part on whether Lubbers would benefit from a favorable ruling,” Geyh said.

“If, as project manager, the ruling will have a direct effect on Lubbers’ career, then the fact that Lubbers is a close friend of the justice – so close as to speak at the justice’s robing ceremony – could engender reasonable doubts about Massa’s impartiality, necessitating his disqualification,” Geyh said.

Lubbers could not be reached for comment. Earlier this year, after Gov. Mike Pence signed Senate Enrolled Act 494 deferring to the Supreme Court and instituting a likely new round of regulatory review for the proposal, Lubbers issued a statement on behalf of Indiana Gasification that read in part, “We will work hard for a win if the Supreme Court takes the case.

“If we win, however, only a clear reversal of position by the governor would enable the project to go forward.”

Representatives of Indiana Gasification and attorneys representing the firm did not respond to requests for comment. Norman Thomas Funk, an attorney representing plaintiff Vectren (Indiana Gas), declined to comment.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT