A National Partnership Working for Fair and Impartial Courts
Contact Us Home July 21, 2018
More than 90% of Americans believe judges should not hear cases involving individuals or groups that contributed to their campaign
Source: USA Today/Gallup
2009 National Poll

The Debate/Briefs




You really have no test other than probability of bias. We can't -- we can't run a system on -- on such a vague standard.

Justice Scalia




We have never confronted a case as extreme as this before. This fits the standard that Potter Stewart articulated [about obscenity] when he said, "I know it when I see it."

Justice Stevens


On March 3, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether election spending by special interests can, in certain cases, force a judge to recuse himself from a case. For more than an hour, lawyers and justices sparred over four key questions. For a transcript of the full hearing, click here. To read highlights, click on the following links:



Can special-interest spending in state judicial elections undermine the right to a fair, impartial court trial? The key issues of Caperton v. Massey are laid out in briefs by the litigants, and in a wide array of “friend of the Court” briefs.


To see highlighted excerpts, as well as links to the full briefs, click here.



Home | History | Spending | Debate | Reforms | Poll | Resources | Grisham | Commentaries | JAS Brief | Quotes



The positions and policies of Justice at Stake publications and campaign partners are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of other campaign partners or board members.
Website Design in Iowa by Global Reach