The Supreme Court granted certiorari on Friday,
November 14th, in one case of interest
to the business community:
Due Process Clause — Judicial Recusal
The increasingly prevalent role of financial contributions in state judicial
elections has long engendered controversy. On Friday the Supreme Court granted
certiorari in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22, to decide
when, if ever, the Due Process Clause requires that a judge recuse himself
because an officer of a company involved in litigation before the court
contributed money to the judge’s campaign.
In this case, in which a judge declined to recuse himself, the Court will,
for the first time in decades, consider the due process standards for judicial
disqualification. The Court’s resolution of this case is of significant
interest to the business community because it could have a profound effect on
judicial campaign contributions and recusal standards across the country.
West Virginia is one of thirty-nine states that elect judges. In 2004, the
election for a spot on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals was
particularly contentious, with Brent Benjamin vying to take the place of the
incumbent, Justice Warren McGraw. During the election cycle, the chief
executive officer of the respondent corporation, A.T. Massey Coal Co. (Massey),
made approximately $3 million in direct and indirect contributions to Benjamin’s
campaign. Justice Benjamin eventually won the election and took his seat on the
high court.
Several years later, Massey petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeals to review
a $50 million verdict entered against it. Petitioners requested that Justice
Benjamin recuse himself from consideration of Massey’s petition. They claimed
that due process required his recusal because the CEO’s support for Benjamin
during the campaign created an appearance of bias. Justice Benjamin declined to
recuse himself, and then the Supreme Court of Appeals granted review and
ultimately overturned the verdict. Upon rehearing, Justice Benjamin again
declined to recuse himself—because the petitioners had failed to present any
evidence that he had a pecuniary interest in the matter or had exhibited an
actual bias toward the petitioners—and the Supreme Court of Appeals again
reversed the verdict.
Amicus briefs in support of the petitioners are due January 5, 2009, and
amicus briefs in support of the respondents are due February 4, 2009. Any
questions about this case should be directed to Dan Himmelfarb (+1 202 263 3035)
in our Washington, DC office.
Disclosure: Mayer Brown filed a still-pending petition for a writ of
certiorari on behalf of Massey Energy Company, the parent of the Caperton
respondent A.T. Massey Coal Co. See Massey Energy Co. v. Wheeling
Pittsburgh Steel Corp., Nos. 08-217, 08-218. That petition, which relates
to a separate West Virginia lawsuit involving Massey, argues that due process
prohibits a court from reviewing a $250 million damages award with the
participation of a different West Virginia Justice who publicly launched severe
personal attacks against both Massey and its CEO.
