Litigation

Massey Adds Twist to Recusal Debate

By Alexandra Saaverda

Massey Energy Co., which was on the losing end of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Caperton v. Massey decision, is now pursuing its own potentially far-reaching constitional challenge to ruless governing when a judge must recuse himself from a  case.

In Caperton v. Massey, the argument was whether a judge could be forced to step aside from cases involving major financial supporters. The court, despite strenuous objection from Massey, said that West Virginia Chief Justice Brent Benjamin was forced to recuse, because Massey CEO Don Blankenship had spent $3 million to help elect him.

Massey’s challenge, which stems from a three-year-old lawsuit, argues that West Virginia’s law is unconstitutional, because it allows the judge whose fairness is under challenge to decide whether he or she may be too biased to remain on the case. According to an Associated Press article published by Herald-dispatch.com:

The company argued in an August 2008 filing that West Virginia’s rule suffers from “fatal constitutional flaws.”

“Simply put: the rule violates due process because it always permits disqualification motions to be decided solely by a justice who has an interest in the outcome,” the filing said.

Ironically, the challenge cites the 14th Amendment “due process” clause, which was at the heart of the original Caperton v. Massey case arguing for Justice Benjamin’s recusal. Adding to the irony, the idea that neutral judges should decide recusal motions, not the judge who is being challenged, is supported by groups that actively fought against Massey and Blankenship in the Caperton v. Massey case.

U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. has decided to proceed with Massey’s federal lawsuit, which had been put on hold,  by calling in a group of lawyers to determine the next step. If it were to be upheld, the case would force almost every state to change its rules on recusal, as most allow judges to make their own decision on whether they can be seen as fair.

To read more on Caperton v. Massey, see: past GavelGrab blogs, and Justice at Stake’s online Caperton resource page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on July 09, 2009 (boomark / email).