Brennan Report; Setting Recusal Standards

8/8/2019 Brennan Report; Setting Recusal Standards

1/51

B C J at New York Uniersity School o Law

Fair Courts:

setting reCusal

standards

J S, D Pz M Y

Foreword by the Honorable homas R. Phillips,Retired Chie Justice, Supreme Court o exas


2/51

About the brennAn center for justice

T B C J N Y U S L - j-. O ,

. A , , B C , , , - .

About the brennAn centers fAir courts projectT B C F C Pj q j . O, , (

), , j, .

8. T C C A-N

D-NC ( ://.).

I B C ,

C , .

T , ,

C . P B C .


3/51

tAble of contents

A A

A F 3

E S 5

I 8

I. J E C C 9

II. T C L R 16

III. T U - U - C P:Aery . State Farm

IV. I J Dq: P R 5

C 35

1


4/51

About the Authors

J S D P B C J, B C C F R F C j-. M. S 3 C L S, H

F S J K S, N E . P j B C H S R. T U.S. C A N C. H Columbia Law Reiew, Washburn LawJournal, Slate, Politico, Te New York Law Journal, omPaine.com, ABAs Judges Journal,Te Hungton Post, . M. S Te New Politics o Judicial Elections 2006.

D Pz 7 Y L S, H F-. H S S R N ://./=36717. H T I J E M

8 Columbia Law Reiew.

M Y B C P P C NYU S L, M. Y 8.

AcKnoWleDGMents

T BC , Mq C, D G, L MC, W W. D C D P . A ,

, P. R S GU L C, P. C G I U S L, D R N C S C. C J P . W : F 11:1 PM S. T M B B C , . F, M W, S L, M W B- C .

T B C C C N Y, JEH F, J F, O S I, W G F. P J K OSI . T - B C.


5/51

3

fw

A sine qua non qj . T j . A C J H F S , T

.

O j -q , A j. B , , .

I , q , j - . T , j , .

B , j j q.

I , j z j . A j. A , j . I , . A B C, N I M S P, J S C ,- , q -

, j . P , j , C J C, S C Republican Party o Min-nesota . White. A White , , , j .

I , . T . I , -

White, J K j - .

T, , C J Rq j A .I j, j q ,


6/51

. T j , . T , , , q - M C .

T B C .J, , z A . A z, , ABA - - j q , . O, , . D- j . N , .

A , j -

. A j , j . B , . H, B C .

T Hr T R. PhpRetired Chie Justice, Te Supreme Court o exas

Tomas R. Phillips was appointed Chie Justice o the Supreme Court o exas by Goernor Wil-

liam P. Clements in 1988. He was elected and reelected to that oce in 1988, 1990, 1996 and2002. He resigned in 2004, and is now a partner in the Austin oce o Baker Botts LLP.


7/51

5

xcv mmy

T J A K Republican Party o Minnesota . White. I White( ), J K

, q, j . T J K .

T A : j j - j, . W - ,

j, , , z . , q q , j j j q , q .I , j .

W , , U S S C . S, -

. T, Aery . State Farm Mutual Insurance Company - . IAery, j , , z , while the case was pending .

F, -. S . O . A . T :

1. Peremptory disqualifcation. J - j , j. A j . S - q, .W - - .


8/51

6

2. Enhanced disclosure. A , j q , - , .S q- . I

j . - q, z - j .

3. Pr rules or campaign contributors. j q , ABA q j (.., - ) . T ABA , , . W ABA -

.

4. Independent adjudication o disqualifcation motions. T j j q , , z U S . A j q - , j q .

5. Transparent and reasoned decision-making. A j q q ,

. S q - .

6. De novo review on interlocutory appeal. M , . T U S C A S C, , .

7. Mechanisms or replacing disqualifed judges. I -, ,

q j. T .

8. Expanded commentary in the canons. E , , - j , q.


9/51

7

9. Judicial education. S j q q . J q- , , ,

.

10. Recusal advisory bodies. J , , - - q, . A j -. J . A j z .

W z . O ,

q j. O , - , ( j ), j . T , -z . B j ; .


10/51

8

c

W , z, . F, . O , . B ,

, . A , . T j . M , j, -, j j j . Y . I , , j, j , , .

A , j , - . Y - . N

, , j . N, , , . W j ? M , . S . D appear j ? O, A B A j , j q? A j - q ?

U, , . T ;

q; . N 1 ; .

I , , -. M , ex ante j , , j , . T q . I - j q - , , . I j, , , z

.

T . P I - , , U S SC . P II q . P III ( ) P I II. F,


11/51

9

P IV - j .

. jc c cfc h c

A. x aak a ad maa

I , j.G z j j , - j ,3 j . M

.

T j.I, C, U.S. S C J S DOC j. O J OC j :

E [6], A S C J P - S C Roper . Simmons,

. O C- , J P j - S C . JP j U.S. S C . . . -, S , C, .5

T : j j j,

. T . M, , .


12/51

1

. my ad da

N, - j.O j , . B 199 1998, $73.5 , 19 -. B , $13 , 67% - , 37 - .7 W $65, , 5% $5,.8

B j . T - , , z, , , , - q .9 j . A , 18 (%) .1B 6, 11 1 (96%).11

E - j . N 1 7% A

j .1

O 5% .13 T j. A 1 , 33% j U.S. q z, 6% [] j U.S. .1

Judge Harrison lamented the politicization o the [state] supreme court. Its unseemly,he was saying, how they are orced to groel or otes. You, as a lawyer representing a

client in a pending case, should hae no contact whatsoeer with a supreme court justice.But because o the system, one comes to your oce seeking money and support. Why?Because some special interests with plenty o money hae decided they would like to ownher seat on the court. Teyre spending money to purchase a seat. She responds by raisingmoney rom her side o the street. Its a rotten system, Wes.

How do you x it?

Either take away the priate money and nance the races with public unds or switch toappointments.

- J G, he Appeal, 189 (8).


13/51

11

M j . I ,8 , , j, q (6%) j (6%) .15 T 56% j j .16

S, - z j -

j ; ? A j , - . P S W A S C - 1995 1999 j .17 I 6, A L J R Te New York ime O SC Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Courts Rulings. T - , O j 7% , j, OD, 91% .18

F O, J 8 L LS C V V P. A P , 1- 6, j 65% , j 8% .19 B, L , , P , z

6 %

%

8%

91%

6

Percentage o States With Contested Supreme Court ElectionsFeaturing TV Advertising, 2000-2006

6

8

1

Percentage

Year F 1. Source: Te New Politics o Judicial Elections 2006


14/51

1

- . T , imes, :

J J L. W, , - , 7 -

. B ( ), 5 . I , , 9 . T q .

I , , - , P P . L , . J C D. K- 3 $1, . T J W,

3 .

T z , P P , .1

I ? T , O L . O : j - . A j O S C,J P E. P, imes: E . T . W , .

vy 2,428 a dg

How much infuence do you think campaign contributions made to judges hae ontheir decisions a great deal o infuence, just a little infuence or no infuence at all?

f fc 4%

m fc 22%

fc 20%

fc 36%

kw 16%

p 2%F . Source: Justice at Stake


15/51

13

. RePublican PaRty of minnesota v. wHitead ama

T S C z j .3 N, Republican Party o Minnesota . White, C

j.

A White M C J C A C j [] .5 T S C , , A C F A j . J S j z , , j j , A C .6 T j

- j.7 J S j .8 I , J K- , .9

T . C q q .

F 3. Source: New Politics o Judicial Elections 2006


16/51

1

A ( , ) . V j , -z . T - , , ,

.

A White - , A- C ( ), . C, , z j

F . Source: Te Florida Family Policy Council


17/51

15

. T - White.

F, j .3 T - P P C j -j

, , .31 S C C, ,, .3 -, q D R - , P P C C.33 W Whitejz -,3 P P C C White .35

T White j , q j , j . A C C P P C , j promises .36 Y q j , q j . E , j - , j .37

C j j . P White, - ,38 White .39 T A S C : W j . B E C G ,

he questions had multiple parts and ollow-ups, and were obiously designed to walk

the oter down a path lined with hot-button issues. No eort was made to explain thatthe supreme court was not a legislatie body; it did not hae the responsibility or jurisdic-tion to make laws dealing with these issues. No eort was made to keep the ield leel.

- J G, he Appeal, 189 (8).


18/51

16

S C White [F A - ] j .1 T E C J S White F A q j

.

F, j j . O S C White, E C M - j .3 O , , - j - .

T - j ,

. A : - S C White .. . . I , , j .5 T White , j q .

I , , q .G , : - . T j -

( j ) j .

. h c cp f c

Rz j , j - q. T ABA M C J C (, M C).6 C .T j, N C j , .7

I j q, . I P, z - U S, q.


19/51

17

a. va a

T q U S j. T R .11(A) ABA 7M C ( C 3E(1) ): A j

q j q.8 T 9 j - ( ), q .

h v c

ABA q - q . j ABA

M, M, . W ( ) W-, , S C , j - . . . , - j j j - q-

j .Wisc. Sup. Ct. R. . 6.() (5). W - -, - . A - ( D C) j- , ABA M

C q q. Y , - - . Jeffrey M. Shaman et al.,Judicial Conduct and Ethics ., 11-11 (3 . ).

I M, M, , -, ABA q. A J 6 M S C

J C, A . S, 79 N.W. 567,581 ( C, J.), J j , . 58( W, J.). A 199 M S C C 3E(1) qq j [] - . W

. M M P, I., 795P. 6, 66 (M. 199) (S, J.,). : C3E(1). ex R. Civ. P. 18()() (5); exas Code of Judicial Con-duct C 5 . () (A j -, C, j

q - .). , - , ABA -.


20/51

18

M R .11(A) q : j ( q) ,5 ,51 j ,5 ,53

,5 ex parte .55 Tper se -.

C q . T j , j() .56 B - q .57 I q j .58 q, j ,59 , j, .6T z j , - -

j , q.61

I - q , ; j , , .6 T . , j .63 O , . N , , q .6

. da a

O j q U.S. j.T - , -q j .65 T q.66W - 67 q .

U , ABA, I L P C G, - q . j, , j z q q, j q

q.


21/51

19

A - j ( j ), , . W j- q q- , , . M , q-

, q M C .

S q j - ( j j 68); q

j ; j .69 M , S C,7 , , q .71N .7

L, j q j - , j -.73 W , j j - .7 I , j .75

A q : j j . A j, , ,76 ( - White), , , .T, q q ,

I M. B C. A I . . . . A , I . I , I , j, z S j .

A I j , - C j $,, .

S: N V Dq H. L V. S, J S C A W V,A.. Massey Coal Co., Inc., .Caperton, N. 3335 (F. 15, 8).


22/51

j - .

. d ad dm

U, q . S . B q M C .

F, q . P , . A , q , .77 A

j j . 78

S, q- . A j .79 , , . M, j q j q .

T, .8T, j q j . G j, j .

. h m f c p: AvERY v. SAE FAR M

I P I II Aery . State Farm Mu-tual Insurance Company, j - U.S. . IAery, j z . , S C , q .81


23/51

1

USC C$,5,

USC C

$6, USC C$,

IC C$13,

I JC

$,5, A R A

$15,

A R A

$1,

AI

A$5,

IM

A$3,

JUSPAC$1,191,53

I R

P$1,9,9

I HA$17,9

A $1,35,336

I SM S

$96,677

ISMIE MI C.

$6,

ISMIE MI C.

$35,

czf

km

cb cz f km

$4,553,660 9-6-3

11-- I S B E

F 5. Source: Illinois Campaign or Political Reorm

I M 3, I S C Aery, S F $1 , $56 - . T N , I SC.

Rz , RP -C J L K, D P -

I A J G M. $9.3 , j j ( ).8 K $ C C $35, S F , , .83M, , q z.


24/51

T . I , K . H M . I , M - K HMO,

K A j . K S. C C , D P .8

I , K . K , -. O I , Aery. B I j q -, . K

, SF. T q j .

chy f AvERY v. SAE FARM cvy

3

M, 3O A Aery

I S C

Aery S C.

C

I S C.C

BIG MONEY FLOWS IN

OVER$ IN OALCONRIBUIONS O KARMEIER

N, K :

K ,

Aery

A, 5K Aery,

$5 +j S F

M 6, 6U.S. S C

certAery

6

F 6.


25/51

3

W J K ? V , .O : K ,S F $56 .T S F -. B , .85

T U S S C . I K q , C -.86 T C , , 1988 - exaco, Inc. . Pennzoil Co.,

j $1, Pzj .87 O , j, $1, q, - j ( W ).Aery , , S C C. I Aery C , C . A , :Aery - ,

j q .

St. Louis Post Dispatch z q K-M :

j j z I. . . .A M. K , .

.

S: E, Illinois Judges: Buying Justice?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, D. ,5, B8.


26/51

f c pp, [$2 m]cb by y h m

W j ,

j q- j , . G - - , j .

A W 7 8 -

. W j / - . I -W S- C J, A Z, , $5, , , A-

ery, -z $ - .

W , . O - :

Z

,

,

C U S

C W

.

Source: E, Ziegler Should Quit the

Bench, C (M), N-

3, 7.

P - , -

, D 7, J Z W RA W B A-. E , - , - $8,65 .

W $17,5 - , q j $ - j -. N , j - , . 11-11 (3 .).


27/51

5

v. v jc qfc: p fm

T . W

- , j q . j -, . C q.

W j White, - . R , , ,

F A .88 H j q jq, z, - .

S, - q. S A q internal-. S . S B z external. W

, .

W z q . O , q - j.89 O , , ( j ), j .T , z -. B White Aery

; .

a. a

I j q - . I, .9 I


28/51

6

. T .

1. Peremptory Disqualication

J j , - j. A j .91

O M, j.9 T q - ( 3 ) , , $1 .93 P q- q q, j . I

, , : , q j , -, q . I - j , .

19 States Allowing Peremptory Disqualifcation

* P j** P j

*

*

*

**

**

**

**

F 7.

*


29/51

7

O q : - j j .9 A , q ,

j . J j q- .95

S . B - q ( j z ), . A , q ,

j . E , , .

2. Enhanced Disclosure

I White, . J - q. S j j .J q

, - . W q, .

S, j q .A - ,96

I , , - , j,, , q , j , , j j . -

.

S: Alaska Stat. ..() (5).


30/51

8

. E , , j . I j , , j

.

M , , j q j -. S q- . I j .

S . A , M C R .11(A) .97 H,

j q q . I q j j q q, j q.98H, M, j q q .99

q, z j . A z j . T

, j.P , , , .1

Oj z j , j , j . (F , , I I - .) T j , , , j , z .11 W

j ( ), against ; j . D - q; j .


31/51

9

3. Per Se Rules or Campaign Contributors

j - q , ABA q j

. A , - q j ,1 j -. 13 T , j - .

S 1999 ( 7 ) ABA M C q j:

T j , , [] [] j [ $[ ] $[] ] [ ].1

B , ABA . B , ABA

, - j .

H, ABA . I, ABA j ; j, q j . 15 M- q -

[Y] - q j . A P [V V] P. I j

, P P , j .

S: A L, Looking Anew at Campaign Cash and Elected Judges, N.Y.IMES, J. 9, 8.


32/51


33/51

31

4. Independent Adjucation o Disqualication Motions

T j j , ,11 z U S q . R

. T j.T j : ; . U , q q j-. R C P q j q, j : j , j q j j .115

I , W V - j .116

L j .117 T j , , -.118 P j j , .119

A j -, j . S q j q- j

j q q.1

A , j j . A :

W V S C q j

. . . . j, D R, C E S U .

S: A P,Massey-Maynard photos highlight judicial recusal rule,he Herald-Dispatch, J 7, 8.


34/51

3

T . I - [j]

q . T -j j - .11

N q , . T j , - . I , j q- , , q sua sponte.1 F - - j ,

.13 (S .) A - j , , - . T - .

5. ransparent and Reasoned Decision-Making

J q j : - q .1 T

j , , , - .15 T - -: , , j . , j q q , .

J $,,! I

j - j . .

S: N V Dq H. L V. S, J S C A W V,A.. Massey Coal Co., Inc., .Caperton, N. 3335 (F. 15, 8).


35/51

33

M q q , .16 H, , q q. C q q .17

S, j q.18 Y . A qj q .

6. De Noo Reiew o Interlocutory Appeal

T -- j .19 M , . I -

j, q . E S C, , .

I , . W , , - , . I j- j , q

( )13 -

7. Mechanisms or Replacing Disqualied Appelate Judges

TAery q j. I J K , , . T -, . I , -

q j.131

8. Expanded Commentary in the Canons

E - . T , . N-


36/51

3

, , , q. T q ,

j q .

9. Judicial Education

S j q q- . J q , , , . T - . B , q

.

. a xa : a advy d

O j . I White - , j .133 T , , - j ( , , )

. T ; - .

A . A j . J . A j z . I ,

C , q-, j j .

S: B R & R S,Judicial Campaign Conduct Committees, 35I. L. R. 781, 783 ().


37/51

35

j q. T j .

v. cc

W - j . B q . T j, q, q. T j .

W , , -

White. R j z, - . F-, -, - j j , . B , - q j . I z .


38/51

36

J S D P B C J

NYU S L. D Pz H F Y L S. M Y - NYU S L B CP P C. T -

S Pz. T J S & D Pz,Making Judicial Recusal More Rigorous, T J J A B A(W 7), aailable at://../=997311. T D G, J S & D Pz, Te Best Deense: Why Elected CourtsShould Lead Recusal Reorm, 6 W L.J.53 (7), aailable at:///./=9973. U -, .

1 , q q , j j j q , -q . I , j .

SeeD R, Te State Courts in 2005: A Year o Liing Dangerously, in 38 Councilof State Govts, he Book of the States 37, 37 (6) (z j- ).

3 See, e.g., K J W . S, F. S. 19 (D. K. 6) ( q j ); B E. R, rip-ping the Rit: Naigating Judicial Speech Fault Lines in the Post-W Landscape, 56 MercerL. Rev. 971, 996-116 (5) ( j q- ).

T J A I L (J.A.I.L. J) SD 6. I S G J j . V j

78 (89% 11%).

5 S D OC, Te Treat to Judicial Independence, Wall St. J., S. 7, 6, A18.

6 Deborah Goldberg et al., he New Politics of Judicial Elections 2004, 13-1 (5),aailable at://..///__1569..

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id. 3.

1 Id. 3.

11 P R, B C J, O C, C A HC N D A A (N. , 6), ://.-./_.?=1&=3881.

1 G Q R R & A V, J S FqQ (1), ://.q.//1617/11_JAS_.; J- S C, M S H: A S O J E ().


39/51

37

13 Id. .

1 Id. 7.

15 G Q R R & A V, J SS JFq Q 5 (), ://.q.//1617/111_JAS_j.; see also S B, N, Disqualiying Elected Judges rom Cases Inoling Campaign

Contributors, Stan. L. Rev. 9, 63-66 (1988) ( j ).

16 Id. 11.

17 S J. W, Money, Politics and Judicial Decisions: A Case Study o Arbitration Law inAlabama, 3 Cap. U. L. Rev. 583, 58 ().

18 A L & J R, Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Courts Rulings, N.Y. imes,O. 1, 6, A1.

19 A L, Looking Anew at Campaign Cash and Elected Judges, N.Y. imes, J. 9,8.

Id.

1 Id.

A L & J R, Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Courts Rulings, N.Y. imes,O. 1, 6, A1..

3 C . R, 51 U.S. 38, (1991).

536 U.S. 765 ().

5 White, 536 U.S. 77.

6 J S : , , --. Id. 775-81. F q J S , J.J. Gass,Brennan Ctr. for Justice at NYU Sch. of Law, AfterWhite: Defending and Amend-ing Canons of Judicial Ethics 6-7 (), aailable at://..///j..

7 See White, 536 U.S. 78-81.

8 Id.

9 See id. 79 (K, J., ) ([S] - q, j .).

3 See, e.g., Mich. Code of Judicial Conduct C 7B.1. (199); Ohio Code of Judi-cial Conduct C 7(B)()() (1997).

31 A . K. J. R & R C, 776 F. S. 39, 315 (W.D. K.1991).

3 See, e.g., Kan. Code of Judicial Conduct C 5A(3)()() (6); Pa. Code of Judi-cial Conduct C 7B(1)() (5).

33 See, e.g., I R L, I. . S, --- F.3 ----, N. 6-13, 7 WL3195, *5 (7 C. O, 6, 7) ( q);P F I-


40/51

38

, I., . C, --- F.3 ----, N. 7-177, 7 WL 3153, *11 (E.D. P. O.16, 7) ( j q P P C); K J W . S, F. S. 19 (D. K. 6), appeal docketedN. 6-39 (1 C. A. 17, 6); D .A, 9 F. S. 968, 97 (W.D. W. 6)(

q

3 White, 536 U.S. 78.

35 CompareA R L P. A C. . F, 38 F. S. 18, 183(D. A 5) ( A P P C), acated, 5 F.38 (9 C. 7), and N D F A, I. . B, 361 F. S. 11, 139 (D.N.D. 5) (A j White . . . [] ), with P- F I, I., . C, --- F.3 ----, N. 7-177, 7 WL 3153, *11 (E.D. P. O. 16, 7) ( P P P C); InreK, 8 S. 77, 87 (F. 3) ( F P P C),and In reW, 79 N.E. 1, 6 (N.Y. 3) ( N Y P PC).

36 M . F, Disqualication or Suppression: Due Process and the Response to JudicialCampaign Speech, 1 Colum. L. Rev. 563, 6 ().

37 Rz , ABA M C, q :

j, j j , , , j , , , - , j .

SeeABA Joint Commission to Evaluate the Model Code of Judicial Conduct,

Overview of Model Code of Judicial Conduct as Adopted (F. 7), aailable at://../j/O_GAK_377. [ ABA Re-port], C , R. .11(A)(5).

38 See, e.g.,S . D B. S C., 9 F. 137, 16 (3 C. 1991)([W] , , .); In reF, 8 P. 31, (O. 1991) ( q q , ).

39 S . A. J D & D C, 368 A. 577 (A. 7); In reD, 838 A. 338 (M. 3).

Simes, 368 A. 577.

1 W . B, 39 F.3 131, 131 (11 C. ); see also R P M. . W, 16 F.3 738, 765-66 (8 C. 5) ( M - ).

See White,536 U.S. 783.


41/51

39

3 See White, 16 F.3 75-63.

See, e.g., In reD, 838 A. 338 (M. 3) ( q j ); In reR, 793 N.E. 187 (N.Y. 3) (- ).

5 N D F A, I. . B, 361 F. S. 11, 11- (D.N.D.

5).

6 SeeABA Report, supra 37; see also R P C, In the Wake oW: HowStates are Responding to R P M . W and How Judicial Elec-tions Are Changing, 38 Akron L. Rev. 65, 66 (5) ( ABA S C J I); M. M MK,Dont Shoot the Canons: Maintaining the Appearance o Propriety Standard,7 J. App. Prac. Process 5, 8 (5) (T [ABA] C [ E M C JC] q ).

7 MK, supra 5, 5.

8 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct C , R. .11 (200) [ ABA

Model Code].

9 8 U.S.C. 55() ().

5 ABA Model Code, supra 8, C , R. .11(A)(1).

51 Id. C , R. .11(A)(6)().

5 Id. C , R .11(A)(3).

53 Id. C , R. .11(A)().

5 See generallyRichard E. Flamm, Judicial Disualification: Recusal and Disualifica-tion of Judges 6..1, . 1 (1996). See also id. 1.1, 335 & .8 ( C 3E q

j ).

ABA Model Code, supra 8, C , R. .9(A); Flamm, supra 5, . 1.

56 T , j . A, Necessity as Justiying Action by Judicial or AdministratieOce Otherwise Disqualied o Act in Particular Case, 39 A.L.R. 176, 179 (195). I 13. SeeU S . W, 9 U.S. , 13 (198).

57 T j . A q q j q q j q . A - j . B

-- j , , , Flamm,supra 5, 19.9, 573-7 ( ), . Seeid. 3.5.3, 66-7 (z ); id. .5, 16-9 (z ); Jeffrey M. Shaman et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics 4.0,at 2 ( . ) ( q- ).


42/51

58 SeeFlamm, supra 5, ., 11-6; Shaman et al., supra 55, .8, 1-.

59 SeeFlamm, supra 5 .6.1, 13.

6 See id. .3, .6.1 11, 131; Shaman et al., supra 57, ., 113.

61 L . U S, 51 U.S. 5, 555 (199); see also U S . G C.,

38 U.S. 563, 583 (1966) ( j ); Flamm, supra 5, .6, 19- ( ); Shaman et al., supra 57, .5, 115-17(). T j j .

6 Flamm, supra 5, 19.9, 573; J L, Teories o Judging and Judicial Dis-qualication, 6 N.Y.U. L. R. 37, 1- (1987).

63 Flamm, supra 5, 19.9, 575-76. D , , , , . Id. 19.9, 576-77. I j, j q -, j , ,

. Id. 19.3.1, 559-6. J q j . Id. .., 653-55. A , , ( ) () .

6 SeeFlamm, supra 5, 3.1, 59 (S. 5) (T , .); Fed. Judi-cial Ctr., Recusal: Analysis of Case Law Under 2 U.S.C. 4 44 65 ()( S, q ); see also Flamm, supra 5, 1.1.1, ( j q q ) ( ); id. 31.-.7, 975-91

(z q - , - , , - ); Patrick M. McFadden,Am. Judicature Socy, Electing Justice: he Law and Ethics of Judicial ElectionCampaigns 19- (199) ( - ). T A , . (T q.) SeeL M. W, C,A Wrong urn on the Road to ort Reorm: Te Su-preme Courts Adoption o De Noo Reiew in C I . L G,I., 68 Brook. L. Rev. 885, 9 (3).

65 SeeFlamm, supra 5, 3.1, 59 ( ,

, ); F, supra 63, 615 (A . . . q.);L, supra 6, .13 ( , 1987, q). See generallyFlamm, supra 5, . 3 ( q).

A , 8 U.S.C. 1 q j , S C -


43/51

1

1 q , B . U S,55 U.S. , 33 (191), q . Flamm, supra 5, 5.8, 737-38; Charles Alan Wright et al., FederalPractice and Procedure 351, 551 ( . 199). C C 1 -q. See, e.g., D L B,Judicial Disqualication in the Federal Appellate

Courts, 87 Iowa L. Rev. 113, 1 (); J P. F, Disqualication o Judges, 56Y L.J. 0, 69 (197); F, inra 71, 53-.

66 P q, , .A j , , j - , , , . SeeFlamm,supra 5, 3.7-.17, 7-1.

67 Flamm, supra 5, 3.9., 8-81.

68 See, e.g., Alaska Stat. ..()(9) (5); Utah R. Civ. P. 63()()-(3) (5); Vt. R.Civ. P. ()(3) (6).

69 SeeL W. A, Deciding Recusal Motions: Who Judges the Judges?, 8 Val. L. U. Rev.53, 55-58 (199) ( ).

7 J q S C , ( ) J-, J q C.M z S C z- . B S C q z , .

71 O , Sz C, I. . FCC, 98F. 157, 159 (7 C. 199); Fed. Judicial Ctr., supra 6, ; A F,Keeping Up Appearences: A Process Oriented Approach to Judicial Recusal, 53 U. Kan. L. Rev.

531. 571-7 (5); R J. L, C, Disqualication o Federal Judges orBias or Prejudice, 6 U. Chi. L. Rev. 36, 66 (1978). O , Flamm, supra 5, 17.5.1, 516-17; A, supra 69, 57( - 199 - j).

7 SeeFlamm, supra 5, 17.5.1, 516-17; F, supra 71, 571-7.

73 SeeFlamm, supra 5, 17.6, 53-35; A, supra 69, 555-58; F,supra 71, 569-7.

7 SeeMcFadden, supra 6, 19; F, supra 71, 569-7; L, supra 6, -5.

75 SeeF, supra 7, 57-71; L, supra 6, -5 (P - . . . ; -, j q .).

76 See generallyAnthony Corrado et al., he New Campaign Finance Sourcebook ( .5); Brennan Ctr. for Justice at NYU Sch. of Law, Writing Reform: A Guide toDrafting State and Local Campaign Finance Laws (D G ., . . ).


44/51

77 See supra 58-6 ; see also R . S, Campaign Speech:Restraint and Liberty in Judicial Ethics, 9 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 0, 18 (1996) (- - ).

78See

Alan J. Chaset, Disualification of Federal Judges by Peremptory Challenge58 (1981) ( [j[, , );H J. B, Recusal on Appeal: An Appellate Adocates Perspectie, 7 J. App. Prac. Process 59, 68 (5) ([A] [] q j j . A , j . A , q j - .); id. 7 ([A] q j q . T j q , , q j .); S A. I, Do Appearances Matter?: Ju-dicial Impartiality and the Supreme Court in B . G, 61 Md. L. Rev. 66, 6 ()

(A J C, q . . . J j.); S L. W, Recusal o Federal Judges: A Discussiono Recent Cases, 1 Just. Sys. J. 55, 53-31 (1991) ( j - ).

79 T - j . D. B C, (161) 77 E. R. 66, 65 (K.B.)(aliquis non debit esse Judex in propria causa . . . .); see also B j, j, . 3 WILLIAM BLACKSONE, COMMENARIES *361, A, R. M- P J

J . . . . [B] J , q J q. R. M P, N, Duck Duck Recuse? Foreign Common Law Guid-ance & Improing Recusal o Supreme Court Justices, 6 Wash. Lee L. Rev. 1799, 1833-3(5).

O 571 j A, N, N H, O q - j . A - q q .Jeffrey M. Shaman Jona Goldschmidt, Judicial Dis-ualification: An emperical Study of Judicial Practices and Attitudes, ().

8 See, e.g., D C ., Bounded Ethicality as a Psychological Barrier o RecognizingConficts o Interest, in Conflicts of Interest: Challenges and Solutions in Business,Law, Medicine, and Public Policy 7 (D A. M . ., 5); E P ., Objectiity in the Eye o the Beholder: Diergent Perceptions o Bias in Sel versus Oth-ers, 111 Psych. Rev. 781 (). P D L B j q B, supra 65, 18-51; DL B, Recusal and the Supreme Court, 56 Hastings L.J. 657, 661-71 (5).


45/51

3

81 T Aery BAmici Curiae 1 Oz C- A I M J I, I, I S P,Aery . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 16 S. C. 17 (6)(N. 5-8) [Aery]; Goldberg et al., supra 6, 18-19, 6-7.

8See

Goldberg et al.,supra

6, 18.

83 P W C 8, Aery, 16 S. C. 17 (6) (N. 5-8).

8 S, - , ://..///__758..

85 SeeJ S, Te Campaign rial: Te rue Cost o Expensie Court Seats, Slate, M. 6,6, ://..//13759/; see also B B P P- P I Cz A/I A C S P- -5, Price . Philip Morris Inc., 17 S. C. 685 (6) (N. 6-65) ( J K $1.1 j P M USA, , , $1 K ).

86 O - B- C J, C L C, z - Aery. See AeryB, supra 81. T [] C - D P C F A q .Id. .

I , - j , . A j, - .

87 , I. . Pz, C., 79 S.W. 768, 8-5 (. A. 1987), cert dismissed, 85U.S. 99 (1988).

88 D J K White, , , - q q. See, e.g., IR L, I. . S, --- F.3 ----, N. 6-13, 7 WL 3195, *5 (7 C.O, 6, 7); K J W . S, F. S. 19 (D. K. 6),appeal docketedN. 6-39 (1 C. A. 17, 6); A R L P. AC. . F, 38 F. S. 18, 183 (D. A 5) acated, 5 F.3 8(9 C. 7); N D F A, I. . B, 361 F. S. 11,139(D.N.D. 5); F F K. . Wz, 35 F. S. 67 (E.D. K.).

89 S q z - , . See, e.g., A Kz, TeR Issues o Judicial Ethics, 3 Hofstra L. Rev. 195 (). T , , - j ( ) , , .


46/51

9 S .

91 See supra 65-67 ( q).T q , 8 U.S.C. 1, S- C q .

See supra 66.

9 Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-8 (5).

93 Id.

9 SeeB, supra 65, 15.

95 SeeFlamm, supra 5, 3.8, 76-79 ( q j- q , , q ).

96 SeeB, supra 15 (A D C q , - , .).

97 ABA Model Code, supra 8, C , R. .11.

98 Iowa Code 6.166 (6); see also I C J C C 3(D) (7)( q / j q j ).

99 M. C J C 3(C) (7).

1 R S, N C S C, A S R (7) ( ).

11 J q-. SeeFlamm, supra 5, 19.1., 579. T ABA M C

[] j j - q q, j q. ABA Model Code, supra 8, C , R. .11, . 5. N, , C , . L, q j . L, supra 6, .

1 See inra 15-111 .

13 See supra 5 ( ).

1 ABA Model Code, supra 8, C , R. .11(A)(). N

7 1999 . A . Id. .

15 J C N, Te Recusal Alternatie to Campaign Finance Legislation, 37 Harv.J. on Legis. 69, 87 (3) ( ); accordFlamm, supra 5, 6..1, 18-85; see also B A C P Cz S R 1,R P M. . W, 536 U.S. 765 () (N. 1-51) ( P


47/51

5

Cz , - q j ). P N q ABA : I, j q j . N, supra, 88 (

q).C q

, , . See, e.g., MKz . S K BS, I., 565 S. 133, 1338 .5 (F. 199) (A q solely , , j , q .); P . P, 39 P.3 791, 798(O. 1) ( z, , j - q ).

16 SeeFlamm, supra 5, 6..3, 191-9.

17 See id. 6.5, 19-96. S q j , was . Id. 6.5, 195-96.

18 A. C 1--() (S. ). C. P W C , Jones .Burnside, 17 S. C. 576 (6) (N. 6-53) ( A ABA C , R. .11(A)(); P A. J,A Proessionalism Creedor Judges: Leading by Example, 5 S. C. L. Rev. 667, 675 & .8 (1) ( A- q j q j q ).

19 See V W, Suit Claims Goernor, AG Not Enorcing Campaign Law, BirminghamNews, A. , 6, B; see also F . P, 75 S. 83, 835 .1 (A. 1997)(C, J., ) ( A. C 1-- V R A); B . - L F, 897 S. 7, 3-3 (A. ) (B, J., )(, I C 1--1 -, $5, amicus curiaePAC ).

11 M C J C [] j j j - . MISS. CODE OFJUDICIAL CONDUC C 3E() (). A - ABA C , R. .11(A)(), [] ABA M C J C. Id. C3E() ..

111 Id.

11 I I S C Aery, , S F no K, - $1 .


48/51

6

113 C , R..11(C) ABA M C J C both . B q -.

11 See supra 7-7 .

115 ex. R. Civ. Pro. 18() (7).

116 See Maynard-Massey Flap riggers Recusal Legislation, he Intelligencer / WheelingNews-Register, F. 1, 8, ://..//.//3855.?=1&=535.

117 H.R.J. R. 1, 78 L., S., (W.V. 8).

118 Id.

119 Id.

1 A O, Regulating Supreme Court Recusals, 6 Sing J. Legal Stud. 6.69 ( q ). R j A q . See supra 8-9 .

11 P, supra 79, 1833 ( ).

1 See supra 79.

13 I, j q , - . O . W , .

1 See supra 7-75 .

15 SeeF, supra 71, 56-63, 569-7, 588-9 ( - L P j q).

16 See, e.g.,Colo .R. Civ .Pro. 97 (7) (q [] ruling q ( -)); Colo .R. Civ .Pro. 58 (7) ( j, , ).

17 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 17.3()(3) (W 7).

18 Id.

19 See, e.g., P G. L, Systemic Due Process: Procedural Concepts and the Problem o Recusal,38 U. Kan. L. Rev. 381, 7 (199) (q j ); J W. S, Rehn-quist, Recusal, and Reorm, 53 Brook L. Rev. , -2 () ().

13 See supra 6.


49/51

7

131 T . See, e.g.,C . U S D. C, 51 U.S. 913, 915-16 () (. S, J.);L . , 9 U.S. 8, 837-38 (197) (. Rq, J.); R B & LE, Recusals and the Problem o an Equally Diided Supreme Court, 7 J. App. Prac. Process 75 (5); O, supra 1, 81-8; N, Disqualication oJudges and Justices in the Federal Courts, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 736, 78-5 (1973); P,

supra 79, 186, 1836-37.13 I M C, ABA

q , . SeeABAModel Code, supra 8 ( q q , ).

133 SeeC J J E. L, Contestable Judicial Elections: Maintaining Respectabil-ity in the Post-W Era, 9 Ky. L.J. 1, 13 (5) (z - A, F, K, O); see alsoTe Way Forward: Lessons romthe National Symposium on Judicial Campaign Conduct and the First Amendment, 35 Ind.L. Rev. 69, 655 () ( ).


50/51

selecteD brennAn center publicAtions

Restoring the Right to voteERIKA WOOD

wele Steps to Restore Checks and BalancesAZIZ Z. HUQ

Te ruth About voter FraudJUSIN LEVI

Te Genius o America: How the ConstitutionSaed Our Country and Why It Can Again

ERIC LANE AND MICHAEL ORESKES

(B USA)

en Tings You Should Know About Habeas CorpusJONAHAN HAFEZ

Te Machinery o Democracy:Protecting Elections in an Electronic World

LAWRENCE NORDEN AND ERIC LAZARUS

(A C P)

Unregulated Work in the Global CityANNEE BERNHARD, SIOBHAN MCGRAH

AND JAMES DEFILIPPIS

Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a ime o errorFREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR. AND AZIZ Z. HUQ

(N P)

Midwest Campaign Finance Series:Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio

SUZANNE NOVAK, E AL.

Access to Justice: Opening the Courthouse Door

DAVID UDELL AND REBEKAH DILLER

An Agenda or Election ReormWENDY WEISER AND JONAH GOLDMAN

F , ..


51/51

Documents

Brennan Report; Setting Recusal Standards