Constitutional Law

Justices Question Money-Court Nexus

The Supreme Court entertained oral argument yesterday in a high profile case regarding rules for recusals and contributions in judicial elections. In Caperton v. Massey, 'several moderate justices implied that an appearance of unfairness resulted when West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin helped void a $50 million verdict against Massey Energy after being elected with the help of $3 million from Massey CEO Don Blankenship,' according to The Charleston Gazette.

However, Justice Antonin Scalia sounded a different tone, challenging the notion that elected judges are susceptible to influence. When someone donates millions of dollars to a judicial campaign, they do so because 'they want me to be a good judge … and I'm showing my gratitude by being a good judge,' said Scalia yesterday at the high court. ACS participant Dahlia Lithwick writes for Slate that, 'Scalia says the recusal rules apply only to judges who have either a financial stake in the case or personal antipathy toward a party. That's because there is no limiting principle to a rule that requires recusal for any appearance or likelihood of bias.'

'In search of a limiting principle,' SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston says, the court was '[t]ugged between a sense that a constitutional ruling on judge's duty to take themselves out of cases if bias is suspected should provide very clear guidance, and a sense that it might be written only to apply in the most extreme factual scenarios.'

As with many cases after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, The Wall Street Journal reported that, 'Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the casting vote in a likely 5-4 decision, and he showed some sympathy for the plaintiff's argument that the judge should have been forced off the case.'

 'Our whole system is designed to ensure confidence in our judgments,' Kennedy noted during oral argument. 'It seems to me that litigants have an entitlement to that under the Due Process Clause.'

Experts discussed the implications of Caperton at ACS national headquarters earlier this week. Interviews with moderator Charles Gardner Geyh, professor of law at Indiana University, and panelist Richard Neely, former West Virginia Supreme Court justice, are available here.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on March 04, 2009 (boomark / email).