Supreme Court Says Judges Must Avoid Appearance of Bias

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.

By a 5-4 vote in a case from West Virginia, the court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit filed against the company of the most generous supporter of his election deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.

With multimillion-dollar judicial election campaigns on the rise, the court’s decision Monday could have widespread significance. Justice at Stake, which tracks campaign spending in judicial elections, says judges are elected in 39 states and that candidates for the highest state courts have raised more than $168 million since 2000.

The West Virginia case involved more than $3 million spent by the chief executive of Massey Energy Co. to help elect state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin. At the same time, Massey was appealing a verdict, which now totals $82.7 million with interest, in a dispute with a local coal company. Benjamin refused to step aside from the case, despite repeated requests, and was part of a 3-2 decision to overturn the verdict.

The coal company, Harman Mining Co., and its president, Hugh Caperton, took the case to the high court.

”Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, but this is an exceptional case,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy’s opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent that he shares concerns about maintaining an impartial judiciary. ”But I fear that the court’s decision will undermine rather than promote these values,” Roberts said.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

__________

See also:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdf

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/08/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Judicial-Ethics.html?hp

Photo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124447000965394255.html

__________

See also:

Case May Alter Judge Elections Across Country

http://abluteau.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/case-may-alter-judge-elections-across-country/

__________

See also:

Court Rules Against Massey Unit in Judicial-Bias Case

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that a West Virginia justice shouldn’t have participated in state court decisions overturning a $50 million judgment against A.T. Massey Coal Co., whose chief executive had been a major financial supporter of the justice’s campaign for office.

The court ruled 5-4 that West Virginia Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from the cases because the A.T. Massey campaign contributions, which totaled more than $3 million, created a serious risk that Mr. Benjamin would be biased in the case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said campaign contributions made by A.T. Massey’s chief executive, Don Blankenship, came at a time when the company had a vested stake in the composition of the West Virginia high court.

“Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when…a man chooses the judge in his own cause,” Mr. Kennedy wrote. “And applying this principle to the judicial election process, there was a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin’s recusal.”

The Supreme Court’s four-member liberal wing joined the moderate conservative Mr. Kennedy in ruling against Massey.

The decision creates a new constitutional recusal standard for judges who take contributions to fund their election campaigns.

West Virginia, like 38 other states, elects its judges rather than appointing them to lifetime tenures.

The court’s four most conservative justices dissented, saying the decision created an unworkable rule for when judges should step aside.

“This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent.

Mr. Benjamin twice was the deciding vote in West Virginia high-court rulings that threw out the judgment against A.T. Massey, a unit of Massey Energy Co.

The $50 million verdict stems from a business-fraud lawsuit filed against A.T. Massey by Harman Development Corp., a privately held mining company based in Beckley, W.Va.

Mr. Blankenship’s contributions to Mr. Benjamin’s 2004 campaign for the state high court represented more than half of the campaign funds for Mr. Benjamin’s election bid.

Monday’s Supreme Court decision reversed the West Virginia court ruling for Massey and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Massey Energy, in a statement, said, “While we are disappointed in the outcome of the Court’s close vote, our outlook about the ultimate resolution of this legal matter remains positive. We are confident that the Harman case was properly decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court initially and believe that any new examination of the same facts and same laws by new justices should yield the same result as before.”

White House Asked to Weigh In on Vaccine Suit

The court Monday also asked the Obama administration to weigh in on whether a Georgia family should be able to bring a product-liability lawsuit against vaccine makers Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

The drug makers say the lawsuit should be barred by a federal law that shields vaccine manufacturers from legal liability.

At issue is a lawsuit by Georgia parents who alleged that their son suffered severe neurological disorders after receiving several vaccines that used thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative. The Georgia Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to go forward for a determination of whether there were design defects in the vaccines.

Wyeth and Glaxo said the Georgia court ruling, if not reversed, could prompt a wave of lawsuits against vaccine makers.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday delayed a decision on whether to hear the case. It asked the U.S. solicitor general, the government’s lawyer at the Supreme Court, to file a written brief expressing the government’s position on the issues in the case.

Former Tyco Executives’ Appeal Declined

Also Monday, the court refused to hear an appeal from two former top executives of Tyco International Ltd. that challenges their convictions for fraud and larceny involving more than $100 million in bonuses.

The justices’ action ends the effort by Tyco’s former CEO L. Dennis Kozlowski and former Financial Chief Mark Swartz to overturn their convictions. They are serving prison terms of 8 1/3 to 25 years for taking unauthorized pay.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The court Monday also turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said it won’t hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Capt. Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

Other Actions

In other actions Monday, the court:

• ruled unanimously that the current Iraqi government can’t be held responsible in U.S. courts for the acts of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
• is staying out a fight between Illinois’s casinos and horse tracks over a state law that cropped up in the impeachment and indictment of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
• said a military court can re-examine the guilty plea for a Nigerian-born serviceman who faces deportation because of his conviction.
• turned down an appeal from Indian tribes that want to block expansion of an Arizona ski resort on a mountain they consider sacred.
• won’t consider making changes to the sentence of a radical environmentalist linked to multiple arsons across the West.

__________

Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124447000965394255.html