Archive for the 'Recusal' Category
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Durkin, assigned to handle a criminal proceeding against former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, donated at least a total of $1,500 to Hastert’s campaigns in the past, when the judge was a private attorney, according to Politico.
The article said the donations could raise questions about the judge’s impartiality, and it also noted that the judge’s brother belongs to the state Republican leadership in Illinois. Hastert is an Illinois Republican. An ethics expert quoted by Politico, Stephen Gillers of New York University, said the political donations were not likely to require the judge to recuse himself from the proceedings.
Judge Durkin is a former prosecutor. He was nominated for the bench by President Obama. The donations to Hastert’s congressional campaigns were made in 2002 and 2004.
Attorneys for ExxonMobil Corp., BP America Co., Chevron Corp., and several independent energy companies have asked Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Jeff Hughes to step aside from participating in review of two environmental cases, due to campaign spending by trial lawyers.
The Louisiana Record reported that the energy companies said plaintiffs’ lawyers made a series of campaign donations to a PAC that supported Hughes’s election in 2012 while the two cases were pending, and as a result, the oil companies’ right to due process was compromised. The plaintiffs’ lawyers spent almost $400,000 to help Hughes win election, according to the recusal motions.
The PAC’s spending captured attention at the time of the 2012 election (see Gavel Grab). Louisiana Record, a legal publication, is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.
When the Wisconsin Supreme Court holds oral arguments on challenges to a campaign finance investigation, it would be ill-advised to do so in secret, as organizations trying to end the investigation have asked, a Beloit Daily News editorial declares.
Four justices on the court benefited from big spending by the organizations, and for them to participate in hearing the case would represent “a conflict of interest of astonishing proportions,” the editorial says.
“If those justices stay on the case and decide it, let’s call it what it is — corruption,” the editorial asserts. It adds, “Corruption is easier to practice when no one is allowed to watch.” It argues for open proceedings and adds, “The people have a right to decide for themselves if justice is now for sale in Wisconsin.”
Earlier, a Wall Street Journal editorial took a sharply different view (see Gavel Grab), saying recusal would not be required under the state’s code of judicial conduct or under the standard set by a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
A special prosecutor’s recusal request before the Wisconsin Supreme Court has garnered national attention, including a supportive New York Times editorial (see Gavel Grab) and a Brennan Center for Justice amicus brief. Now a Wall Street Journal editorial argues against recusal.
The editorial is entitled, “The Left’s Recusal Gambit: A prosecutor and his allies try to rig a judicial appeal in Wisconsin.” (It is searchable through Google). The editorial’s authors say they reviewed the motion that one or more Wisconsin Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from hearing challenges to a campaign finance investigation. Four justices are reported to have benefited from multimillion-dollar spending by three groups involved in the cases. Read more
For the second time, the Illinois Supreme Court has rejected a request by a plaintiff’s attorney to disqualify Justice Lloyd Karmeier from participating in hearing an appeal involving Philip Morris USA, according to the Madison-St. Clair Record.
Meanwhile, “The Court also indicated that a motion for his recusal has been referred to Karmeier,” the newspaper reported. Read more
A “fiasco” playing out in the Wisconsin Supreme Court leaves no doubt as to the “toxic effects of outsize spending in judicial elections,” the New York Times declared in an editorial. In making its case, the editorial linked to a public opinion poll by Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice.
As mentioned earlier by Gavel Grab, a special prosecutor has requested that one or more Wisconsin Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from hearing challenges to a campaign finance investigation. Four justices are reported to have benefited from multimillion-dollar spending by three groups involved in the cases.
Whether to recuse “should not be a hard call,” the editorial said, “but under a pitifully weak rule in Wisconsin’s code of judicial conduct, judges do not have to recuse themselves over independent spending related to their campaigns.” By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a more robust standard in Caperton v. Massey, it said, referring to a landmark runaway judicial election spending case from West Virginia. Read more
The Brennan Center for Justice has submitted an amicus brief urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in deciding a recusal request (see Gavel Grab), to apply its own rules in a manner that’s consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Caperton v. Massey ruling.
A special prosecutor has asked that one or more of the justices recuse themselves from hearing challenges to a campaign finance investigation. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported that four justices benefited from extensive spending by three groups involved in the current cases. Read more
Gavel Grab has mentioned a special prosecutor’s recent request for one or more of the justices to recuse themselves from hearing challenges to a campaign finance investigation, and Justice at Stake’s remarks that this reflects the “bitter harvest of electing judges.” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported that four justices benefited from extensive spending by three groups involved in the current cases.
Now a lengthy article by Bruce Murphy at Urban Milwaukee, an online publication, delves further into spending that benefited the justices. He zeroes in on spending by Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers and says: Read more
A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article said the court filing was sealed, but a docket revealed information that special prosecutor Francis Schmitz brought up “ethical concerns” and asked one or more justices to halt their participation in the case. The investigation has examined whether the campaign of Gov. Scott Walker worked illegally with conservative groups backing him when recall elections were held in 2011 and 2012. Read more
In December, ABC News questioned the ethics of Justice Robin Davis of the West Virginia Supreme Court. Now ABC News says Justice Davis is seeking to punish an attorney who sought her recusal in a nursing home case.
Last year, ABC News said a plaintiff’s attorney, Michael Fuller, purchased a jet airplane from the husband of Justice Davis and contributed to, and worked so that others would give to, her 2012 re-election campaign (see Gavel Grab). Justice Davis said she was not involved in the transaction, she did not know who the donors were, and there was no reason for her to recuse from a nursing home case involving Fuller.
This week, ABC News said an attorney opposing Fuller in a different nursing home case, Mark A. Robinson, asked Justice Davis to step aside, saying there was an appearance of a conflict of interest. Justice Davis in turn accused him of making a “false and misleading assertion” against her and sent the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for investigation, according to ABC News. Read more