• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Solomon Named to SEC Litigation Post | Main | In Clemens Retrial, Prosecutors Seek Secrecy Over Witness Issue »

April 13, 2012


law dork

Bravo, Judge Lamberth, for standing up to make sure the right thing is done.

One legal nit: it is not clear that old orders by Judge Lamberth in the case would necessarily have to be set aside. The Supreme Court has suggested that, as in other areas of the law, recusal law may be subject to harmless error review (e.g., review by another court indicating that any recusal error was harmless to the merits of the order(s) on review). See Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988).


The law's delays . . .

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad