Litigation

An Extraordinary Day in Caperton Case

By Charlie Hall

Caperton v. Massey, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on  campaign spending in judicial elections, has produced an extraordinary outpouring of commentary and legal analysis on why the current status quo of runaway special-interest spending poses a historic threat to fair, impartial courts in America.

The case, whose background is spelled out at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Caperton resource page, involves a West Virginia coal executive who spent $3 million to elect a state Supreme Court justice, who in turn cast the deciding vote to overturn a $50 million judgment against the executive’s company.

As noted in a joint press release by the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake, friends-of-the-Court briefs were spelled out the concerns posed by special interest spending and its power to tilt the scales of justice. The signers of these briefs included an unprecedented array of jurists; legal groups including the American Bar Association; major businesses including Intel, Wal-Mart and Pepsi; and dozens of civic reform groups.

There is too much to comment on in just one posting, so this is an initial set of links regarding the Caperton briefs.

First, a commentary by Douglas T. Kendall and Elizabeth B. Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center on the amicus brief they authored on behalf of Justice at Stake and 27 co-signing civic reform groups.  The commentary discusses the roots of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, and its specific legacy of trying to preserve fair, impartial courts. A link to the CAC/Justice at Stake brief is here.

Second, the National Center for State Courts has just issued a press release about an extremely rare brief by the Conference of Chief Justices, the  national organization that represents the top judges of the 50 states and the U.S. territories. By policy, the CCJ does not take sides in specific litigation, but the Conference of Chief Justices brief is illuminating.  Further comment on this and other Caperton briefs will be coming soon in Gavel Grab.

Finally, links to two press articles on the case. The first is from the Charleston Gazette-Mail. The second is by the Associated Press.

At issue in Caperton v. Massey is whether the massive spending by coal executive Don Blankenship should have forced Justice Brent D. Benjamin to recuse himself from the case. Benjamin’s refusal to do so has been appealed on the grounds that it violated the opposing litigant’s due-process right to an impartial court.  The Supreme Court will hear arguments in early March.

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 07, 2009 (boomark / email).