Litigation

Respondents? Brief Filed for Caperton v. Massey

By Lissette Villarruel

?Because he had no pecuniary interest in the outcome, Justice Benjamin was not constitutionally barred from participating in the [Caperton] decision…? Such was the argument of the respondents in Caperton v. Massey in their brief filed on January 28, 2009.

The respondents’ brief serves as an aggressive response to the claims of the petitioners, who argue that because Massey Energy’s CEO Don Blankenship gave $3 million in independent campaign expenditures, West Virginia Chief Justice Brent Benjamin had a constitutional obligation to recuse himself from hearing an appeal against the coal company.

The petitioners’ and several amici briefs assert that Benjamin?s participation in the appeal created not only the appearance of bias, but his refusal to recuse himself also highlighted the possibility of partiality towards Massey Energy.

The respondents countered that, ?There is no basis in history, precedent, or this Court?s practice for the notion that ?bias? in general?much less a ?probability of bias??mandates disqualification under the Due Process Clause.?

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Caperton on March 3, 2009.

For more information concerning Caperton v. Massey, you can visit other Gavel Grab postings and the Brennan Center for Justice Caperton resource page. The 72-page respondents? brief can be found through this link.

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 30, 2009 (boomark / email).