Supreme Court Justices Appear Ready to Set Recusal Rules

, Legal Times


A majority of the Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared open to adopting a constitutional due process rule that would require an elected state judge to recuse in a case involving the interests of a major campaign donor. During arguments in a closely watched West Virginia case, the justices wrestled with how to craft a standard for deciding when recusal is required, without opening the floodgates to recusal motions or allowing the standard to spill over to affect appointed federal judges -- including themselves.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • HGLtraveling

    There is an easy solution to the question of recusal and campaign contributions. Simply outlaw contributions from attorneys [or members of their firm, collectively] over $1000. to any judicial candidate. That would equalize the playing field and insure that no judge would be biased in favor of any attorney who contributes to their campaign. When it comes to litigants, if their contribution is over $1000. then the judge should recuse . Judicial campaigns should not be corruption factories, but that is what they have turned out to be. When it comes to judicial nominations, if a judge is presiding over a case between a party who assisted in their nomination or campaign, that should be grounds for recusal. To do anything less, would continue to breed corruption. And all Federal and State Recusal Laws should be conformed to the same standards.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202428760750

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.