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.
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
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.
Plaintiff’s Counsel on Supreme Court Decision in Lopez Torres v. NYS Board of Elections
This morning plaintiffs’ counsel issued the following statement in response to the decision issued today by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding New York’s system of selecting State Supreme Court Justices (trial judges in New York). The case is New York State Board of Elections v. López Torres. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, together with co-counsel Arnold & Porter LLP and Jenner & Block LLP, represents the plaintiffs in the litigation.
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.
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.
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.