Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling on Judicial Recusal

In a landmark ruling that could affect state judicial elections nationwide, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that due process requires a state judge to recuse when a party in a case before him or her has had a "significant or disproportionate" influence on placing the judge on the court through a large campaign donation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the the 5-4 majority, emphasized the ruling affects only extreme cases like the West Virginia case before him in Caperton v. Massey Coal Co. But dissenters led by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. warned the majority's standard is vague and will lead to a flood of "Caperton motions" alleging conflicts and seeking recusal that will only sully the reputation of the judiciary, not enhance it.

Judicial reformers are already celebrating the decision.“The Supreme Court’s decision safeguards a central concept of our democratic, American way of life,” said Mary Wilson of the League of Women Voters.  “This case presented the Court with an opportunity to preserve equal justice under law.  The Caperton decision has reinforced this fundamental value.” 

     

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Kourlis of the University of Denver’s Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System said she hopes the ruling will "create some momentum" for states to consider scrapping judicial elections and moving toward merit selection. "Election states may begin to think, 'we can do better than this.'" 

Check back later at the National Law Journal site for more on the Caperton ruling and other action at the Supreme Court today.

Comments

[Tony Gottlieb]

This majority decision is light-weight and a deep dissapointment.
Caperton v. Massey Coal Co. was a grotesque example of what occurs daily in State Courts. The General rule should be that any litigant, defendant or attorney appearing before a judge to whom they have made campaign contribution gives the appearance of impropriety and should require the Judge to recuse themself. The question should never be raised.
Public finance of the judicial election campaigns is the only hope of maintaining imparitiality in the justice system.