judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in today’s New York Times argues that the United States Supreme Court should take the case of Caperton v. Massey — the West Virginia case that asks whether judges should be required to recuse in cases involving significant campaign contributors. We’ve written about the case here and here. The Times argues that this case “offers the United States Supreme Court a chance to help rescue the fairness of state courts from the sea of special-interest money.”

This case has been on the Court’s agenda to consider during four meetings already this term. No decision on whether to take the case has been announced yet, and the case is again listed as an item on tomorrow’s meeting agenda. The Times urges the Court to take the case:

Judicial neutrality and the appearance of neutrality are basic to due process. The justices would do a great deal to protect essential fairness by making clear that outsize campaign expenditures trigger a duty of recusal on the part of the beneficiaries. Surely there must be the requisite four votes on the Supreme Court for taking the case.

We agree that this case presents very important issues and are waiting to see whether the Court will weigh in. We will post any updates following the Court’s meeting.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS