Gavel Grab

Michigan’s Supreme Court, responding to potential ethical conflicts, has approved tough new rules that will help prevent favored treatment for special interests that spend heavily to elect justices on the high court.

According to an Associated Press article, the court voted 4-3 Thursday to approve  rules tougher than those required by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Caperton v. Massey case. A proposed rule disseminated by the court (see Alternative C in the draft proposal) said that a judge should be disqualified when “the judge’s impartiality might objectively and reasonably be questioned.”

And in a provision that may have no precedent at the state Supreme Court level, the court said that whenever a Michigan justice rejects a recusal motion, a litigant may appeal that ruling to the entire high court.

If the challenged justice denies the motion for disqualification, a party may move for the motion to be decided by the entire Court. The entire Court shall then decide the motion for disqualification de
novo. The Court’s decision shall include the reasons for its grant or denial of the motion for disqualification.

Justice Diane Hathaway said the proposal consciously seeks to address issues raised by Caperton v. Massey, in which a litigant spent $3 million to help elect a new West Virginia Supreme Court justice while he was seeking to overturn a $50 million jury award. The case drew national attention to the issue of special interest groups seeking to elect judges beholden to their agendas.

The justices engaged in a vigorous exchange over the proposed recusal rule.

“Times are changing and we’re becoming increasingly aware of the impact a refusal to disqualify has on the public,” said Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly, according to Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. It is a partner of Justice at Stake.

“I don’t think it will reap the terrible consequences that have been put forward,” Justice Elizabeth Weaver said.

Justice Robert Young Jr. voiced concern that relationships on the court would be harmed by the rule. “No one takes lightly being accused by his colleagues of being less than ethical,” he said.

Putting a similar concern more colorfully was Justice Maura Corrigan, who cautioned, “What we’re about to do means we cannibalize one another.”

To learn more, see Justice at Stake’s Caperton v. Massey in-depth issues guide, or written testimony submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court by Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice. By clicking here, you can see a Justice at Stake press release about the new Michigan rule.