Sierra Club NationalWest Virginia Sierra Club
Explore, enjoy and protect the planet
> Chapter Home
> Newsletter Home
 
> Archives
> Editorial contact
 

Court says Judges must avoid Appearance of Bias
click for print view

by Mark Sherman | 2009

Seems like common sense, unless you are elected to the WV State Supreme Court!

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday (June 8) 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. The coal company, Harman Mining Co., and its president, Hugh Caperton, took the case to the high court. Benjamin refused to step aside from the case, despite repeated requests, and was part of a 3-2 decision to overturn the verdict.

“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.

Other Articles

  • 2009
    Table of Contents


     
     

© copyright Sierra Club 1892-2010