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:

• Is special-interest spending damaging the reputation and integrity of the courts? And, specifically, did the Caperton case cross any line?
• Can special-interest spending ever cause a Constitutional problem, by violating the 14th Amendment guarantee of a fair, impartial hearing?
• Must a litigant prove a judge has actual bias or direct personal interest, or can the appearance or probability of bias warrant recusal?
• If the Supreme Court decides a West Virginia justice should have recused, can it articulate a clear standard for future election-spending cases? 

 Briefs

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