ILNews

Massa stays in Rockport case despite calls for recusal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Mark Massa on Aug. 14 denied a formal motion arguing that he should recuse himself from a pending case concerning a controversial power plant in Rockport. The project is backed by a longtime friend of Massa and former aide to Gov. Mitch Daniels, whose administration championed the project.

massa Massa

Massa signed an order denying the motion from environmental and consumer groups opposed to the planned $2.7 billion coal gasification plant. Critics contend that Massa’s longtime professional and personal relationship with project manager Mark Lubbers cast doubt on his impartiality.

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.

“The moving parties can do the math and know that in the event of my recusal, they would only have to convince two judges to prevail, leaving the Court split and winning the tie,” Massa wrote.

He cited Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, in which Justice Antonin Scalia declined to recuse himself in a challenge brought by the Sierra Club involving former Vice President Dick Cheney’s shooting of a friend during a duck-hunting trip in which Scalia participated.

“Thus, ‘even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the court,’” Massa wrote, citing Cheney, “something I will not do in the absence of sufficient cause in a question of large public import. I therefore will participate when this case is heard.”

The Supreme Court will hear Indiana Gas Company, Inc. v. Indiana Finance Authority, 93S02-1306-EX-407, at 9 a.m. Sept. 5.

The Sierra Club was among groups that asked Massa to disqualify himself when Florida attorney Jerome Polk filed the motion Tuesday. Others included Citizens Action Coalition, Spencer County Citizens for Quality of Life and Save the Valley.

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.

But Massa said the argument for recusal would disable the courts. “I have a friend who works for General Motors; must I recuse if GM is a party to a case before our court?” he wrote. “All of us on this Court have many friends who are lawyers, some of whom appear before us, including several to whom I am closer and see more regularly than Mr. Lubbers. If mere friendship with these lawyers were enough to trigger disqualification, my colleagues and I would rarely sit as an intact court of five.”

The motion for recusal argued that “Lubbers has his personal fortune at stake in the outcome of this proceeding,” having been involved in the $2.7 billion project for years and lobbying for it at the Statehouse. Massa, in denying recusal, said that isn’t the case: “(n)either Mr. Lubbers’ freedom nor his fortune are at stake in this lawsuit.”  

Massa also wrote that he “had no involvement in the negotiation of the contract between the Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification. I was not (Daniels’) counsel when the deal was struck in 2011 and thus had no involvement in it of any kind.”

“The question is whether the contract, negotiated long after my departure from the Governor’s office, comports with Indiana law,” Massa wrote. Two of three Indiana Court of Appeals judges ruled that it does not.

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

The recusal 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 argued 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.”

Nonetheless, Massa will not recuse.

“As Justice Scalia put it,” Massa wrote, “the decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported.”

Following Massa’s denial of the motion, Kerwin Olson, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition, issued the following statement:

“CAC is disappointed that Justice Massa has decided to not recuse himself. Speaking as a non-lawyer, if this particular case is not a textbook example of one in which recusal is appropriate and expected, I don’t know what case would be. The public’s confidence in the objectivity of the legislative, regulatory, and judicial oversight of the energy and utilities industry in the State of Indiana is at an all-time low this week with this decision and the dismissal of all charges against David Lott Hardy. The point of these ethics laws and ex-parte rules is to give the public confidence that decisions made are based on sound public policy and proper legal judgment. These laws and rules are nothing more than meaningless words on paper if the spirit of them continues to be ignored by those expected to honor and enforce them.”•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT