Appellate Law

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Important Recusal Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an interesting case on recusal today. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., [08-22],  a 5-4 opinion, the Court recognized a due process violation when a judge refuses to recusue himself when a litigant "had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."
 

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the defendant Massey was hit with a $50 million judgment in West Virginia. After the verdict but before the appeal, West Virginia had an election for their Supreme Court. Massey's chairman threw his support behind Brent Benjamin, a challenger for one of the contested seats. In addition to donating the $1,000 statutory maximum to the campaign, Massey's chairman also donated $2.5 million to a PAC which supported Benjamin, and also spent another $500,000 on direct mailing and ads supporting Benjamin. This $3 million spent by Massey's chairman was more than the total spent by other Benjamin supporters combined, and three times the amount spent by Benjamin's own committee. Benjamin was elected by 50,000 votes, which was 7 percentage points.

Benjamin refused to recuse himself when Massey's appeal was brought before the court. By a 3-2 vote, with Benjamin voting with the majority, the judgment was reversed. On rehearing, other justices recused themselves, but Benjamin again refused. On the rehearing, Benjamin, acting as chief judge, appointed special justices to hear the appeal. Again with Benjamin's vote, the rehearing was denied.

The U.S. Supreme Court had previously recognized two instances where due process required recusal - when the judge had a financial interest in the outcome and when the judge is trying a defendant for certain forms of criminal contempt. The Court now recognizes a new due process right to recusal when a litigant exerted disproportionate influence in getting the judge elected:

We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias-based on objective and reasonable perceptions-when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent. The inquiry centers on the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.

2009 WL 1576573 at *11. The Court found that instances such as these raised a serious, objective risk of actual bias which required recusal. The opinion was authored by Justice Kennedy and joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Roberts said this "objective" test provided no guidance at all, and listed 40 different inquiries which would have to be answered when applying this test. Roberts said that this was a classic case of "Hard cases make bad law." Scalia also wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the cure of this case was worse than the disease.

Full post as published by Alabama Appellate Watch on June 08, 2009 (boomark / email).