SCOTUS: Elected judges must step aside

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Elected judges must recuse themselves in cases where large campaign contributions from interested parties create an appearance of bias, the nation's highest court ruled today.

In a landmark decision that has been highly anticipated from the bench and bar, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its split decision today in Hugh M. Caperton, et al. v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., No. 08-22, which asked justices to reverse a $50 million verdict in favor of a coal-mining executive who'd contributed millions to an elected West Virginia Supreme Court justice's 2004 campaign.

With a 5-4 vote, the majority said that a judge who refused to recuse himself in a lawsuit filed against the company of the most generous supporter of his election deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.

Caperton and other plaintiffs had accused major coal-mining company Massey Energy of breaking a coal-supply contract and driving them out of business. The trial court awarded Caperton $50 million, but then the state's Supreme Court twice reversed that jury award by 3-2 votes, which sparked the judicial ethics issue.

The company's chief executive, Don Blankenship, spent more than $3 million to help elect Justice Brent D. Benjamin to the state's Supreme Court of Appeals and defeat his incumbent opponent. That was more than 60 percent of the total spent on the judicial campaign, paid while Blankenship's company was preparing to appeal the verdict. On appeal, Justice Benjamin was the deciding vote in two 3-2 majorities to throw out the verdict against Massey after refusing to recuse himself from the case.

Since then, he's risen to the spot of chief justice of that court.

In urging the SCOTUS not to hear the case, Massey's lawyers said the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause requires only the absence of an actual judicial conflict of interest, as when a judge has a stake in the outcome of a case. The company argued that the court had never adopted a "'looks bad' due process test" and therefore the verdict should stand because Justice Benjamin wasn't required to recuse himself.

However, that argument didn't persuade a majority of justices who found this case to be extraordinary and required the justice to step aside.

"Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal, but this is an exceptional case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the majority, reversing and remanding the case to the West Virginia court. "On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level."

Relying on precedent that delved into how the Due Process Clause requires recusal in certain cases, justices also turned to the American Bar Association's model judicial conduct code that states, "A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." States are allowed to go further than the Due Process Clause in setting their own rules, and this case shows that the Constitution tests only the "outer boundaries of judicial disqualifications" and most won't reach this level, the majority determined.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens joined Justice Kennedy, while Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

"Unlike the established grounds for disqualification, a 'probability of bias' cannot be defined in any limited way," the chief justice wrote. "The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case."

This ruling is expected to have widespread influence throughout the country, including in places like Indiana that are grappling with the debate about whether judicial elections or a merit-selection and retention system are better methods in choosing who's on the bench.


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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?