Gavel Grab

The Supreme Court will hear a potentially landmark judicial ethics case, deciding whether judges must sometimes remove themselves from cases involving those who helped them get elected.

The court announced it would hear Caperton v. Massey, a case in which a coal executive spent more than $3 million to elect a West Virginia Supreme Court justice in 2004. That justice, Brent D. Benjamin,  later cast the deciding vote to overturn a $50 million judgment against the executive’s company.

Yesterday’s action is discussed in articles by the Associated Press and the Blog of the Legal Times.

Caperton v. Massey has enormous significance in an era in which competing special interests have spent heavily to elect friendly state Supreme Court justices.  A Justice at Stake poll showed that three in four Americans believe that campaign contributions can influence a judge’s decisions in court.

While litigants can ask a judge to step aside, most states, including West Virginia,  give judges the final word on whether their impartiality has been compromised.  In seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention, lead counsel Theodore Olson argued that Caperton’s right to due process under the law was violated by Justice Benjamin’s refusal to step aside.

 The Brennan Center for Justice, which wrote an amicus brief urging the court to take the case, issued this press release. It quotes James Sample, counsel for Brennan, as saying:

“The sole interested source of money, the enormous sums, and the timing of the expenditures in this case constitute an egregious example of a national trend—brazen attempts to purchase influence in pending cases. Ted Olson and the petitioners are squarely on the mark—this case is far beneath the floor of the most basic notions of due process.”

 The Brennan release includes links to Brennan’s web page on the Caperton case, as well as a New York Times editorial this week that called on the court to hear Caperton.

Blankenship did not directly contribute money to Justice Benjamin’s campaign, instead spending on an independent TV ad blitz on Benjamin’s behalf. Benjamin, in explaining his refusal to recuse, said the key issue was whether he in fact was impartial, as he said he was, not whether some thought he might appear to be biased.

Arguments before the Supreme court are scheduled to begin in March or April.

Further postings on Caperton v. Massey can be found in Gavel Grab.