Court Watchers Predict ‘Deluge’ of Recusal Requests in Light of Caperton
Posted Jun 11, 2009, 10:57 am CDT
By Molly McDonough
This week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a West Virginia Supreme Court justice should have recused himself from a case involving a party that helped fund his campaign has lawyers across the country predicting a "deluge" of recusal requests.
But judges told the New York Times that few situations would involve conflicts serious enough to result in actual recusals.
On Monday, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that Justice Brent Benjamin should not have participated in a case involving a coal mining executive from Massey Coal Co. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company majority opinion that due process required recusal. Benjamin had twice voted with a 3-2 majority to overturn a $50 million verdict against Massey Energy, despite the large judicial campaign contributions made by CEO Don Blankenship.
One thing is for certain, scrutiny of conflicts will increase.
"You're going to see a much greater analysis put to the campaign contributions that elected judges get," ABA President H. Thomas Wells Jr., told the Times.
Because such large campaign donations are rare, Bradley A. Smith, chair of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes campaign regulations for First Amendment reasons, said "I wouldn’t think you would find judges panicking" and saying "Whoo! I’d better go over my docket!"
But lawyers told the Times that they see opportunity in the high court's ruling.
John Wesley Hall Jr. of Little Rock, Ark., said the Caperton ruling gives lawyers who file recusal motions "an issue to argue" on constitutional grounds.
Meanwhile, some states have already started to review where lines should be drawn. Wisconsin will hold rule-making hearings in the coming fall focusing on the influence of political contributions to judges.
No comments:
Post a Comment