Litigation

Judicial ?Push-back? Over Federal Recusal Proposal

By Peter Hardin

Some lawmakers in the House of Representatives are considering writing changes to the process for disqualification of federal judges, and the federal judiciary is “pushing back,” according to an article in National Law Journal.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. Massey requiring  a West Virginia Supreme Court justice to step aside in a controversial case, a House Judiciary subcommittee heard about proposals for a new federal recusal process and from Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown (photo), chair of the U.S. Judicial Conference’s ethics committee.

Some lawmakers are looking at a new recusal process for federal judges “in which a judge who is targeted for disqualification would not be the one to rule on the motion,” the article reported. One idea under discussion involves automatic recusal, whereby both sides in a dispute would get a chance to disqualify a judge “for any reason,” typically when the litigation begins.

Automatic recusal would meet resistance from federal judges, said Judge McKeown. She raised  concerns about case management, the possibility of judge shopping and a threat to “the independence of the judiciary.”

You can view video of the hearing by clicking on this House Judiciary Committee link, and you can check out written testimony of witnesses by clicking here. In Caperton, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that campaign spending can damage a litigant?s right to a fair trial; you may read about Caperton at Justice at Stake?s resource page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on December 14, 2009 (boomark / email).