Litigation

Commentary: Is MI Recusal Rule Constitutional?

By Peter Hardin

A law professor raises questions about the constitutionality of Michigan’s new rule governing disqualification of judges in a column published by the Detroit News.

The new  rule, adopted by Michigan?s Supreme Court, would let a majority of state Supreme Court justices disqualify one of their own from hearing a case, in the event of an apparent bias or conflict of interest. It replaces a practice whereby only the justice in question decides whether to step aside.

Matthew Schneider of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing contends  that the new rule tramples the constitutional principle of “one person, one vote,” it does not set a process for a fair hearing, it causes a “chilling effect” on free speech, it is not based on state constitutional authority, and it could result in a court with only four members.

You can click here to read in Gavel Grab a different view from another newspaper, a laudatory editorial about the new rule from the Detroit Free Press. You can read other Gavel Grab posts about the controversial new rule by clicking here. Justice at Stake has praised the new rule, saying, “When courts work to insulate cases from interest group pressure, citizens can be more confident that their courts will be fair and impartial.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on December 23, 2009 (boomark / email).