Independence & Accountability
Courts can expect public support for their independence only if they are accountable for their conduct on and off the bench. The Brennan Center helps to educate the public about appropriate measures of judicial accountability and encourages judges to meet those standards. We also defend courts against unwarranted attacks on their independence and promote the proper balance between the judiciary and other branches of government.In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, the Center launched an effort to help states preserve effective canons of judicial conduct that balance free-speech rights of judges with the due-process rights of litigants and the interest in judicial independence. In particular, the Center supports more rigorous recusal requirements, especially when judicial campaign conduct or campaign finance throws the impartiality of judges into doubt.
The public often does not understand the difference between the judiciary and other branches of government. From time to time, we see efforts to constrain judges in ways that are inconsistent with their constitutional role or attempts to upset the balance of governmental power by stripping courts of the right to hear important categories of cases. Through legal analysis and public education, we help to combat these misguided initiatives.
Justice Brent Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused to recuse himself from the appeal of a $50 million jury verdict in this case, even though the CEO of the lead defendant spent $3 million supporting his campaign. Did Benjamin’s failure to recuse violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Impartiality Still an Issue After WV Judge’s Riviera Scandal
It takes a lot for a sitting Supreme Court justice to lose an election, but Elliot Maynard managed....
Certain American values transcend partisan divisions. One is that money should not influence the courts. But with record sums pouring into judicial elections, the ideal of due process is giving way to a perception of pay-to-play justice…
It is not every day that a U.S. Supreme Court justice writes a separate one-paragraph opinion merely for the purpose of pointing out that, as a matter of policy, a state law is “stupid.”
Illustrations by Risko
Coalition Urges Supreme Court to Review West Virginia Case
The Center for Justice, along with the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and the Reform Institute, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in a case with national ramifications regarding one of the most basic rights in any system of law: the right to a fair hearing before an impartial arbiter.
Harman Mining Company (W. Virginia recusal case)
Press release from counsel of Harman Mining Co. announcing that Ted Olson will represent them in the U.S. Supreme Court.
BC Proposal Offers Fresh Ideas and Reforms to End the Growing Threat to Judicial Impartiality
In an effort to restore trust in our justice system, the Brennan Center for Justice has published a new report that seeks to eliminate even the appearance of an imbalanced judiciary with consistent principles and rules for when a judge should step down from a case.
W. Virginia Supreme Court Justice Larry Starcher - February 15, 2008 Recusal Order
11-page order describing Justice Starcher’s decision to recuse himself from participating in any more proceedings involving Massey Energy Co.
Selected Press and Commentary on Caperton v. Massey
Stories covering the West Virginia case.
Hugh M. Caperton et al. v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., et al. - Petition for Writ of Certiorari
In the West Virginia recusal case, a petition for certiorari was filed by Petitioners with the U.S. Supreme Court on July 2, 2008.
Incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Joel Horton and his challenger, 2nd District Judge John Bradbury, ran for a contested seat on the Idaho Supreme Court.