In a very unusual case, the Supreme court held that due process requires a judge that received a substantial campaign contribution (in this case $3 million) from a litigant, to recuse himself. In the present case, the judge in question voted to overruled a significant $50 million judgment against his contributor.
The troubling thing is that the Supreme Court's decision was 5 to 4 vote. It seems fairly obvious that someone making a campaign contribution of that magnitude should not be a party to an action in front of the judge that received the contribution. It doesn't pass the smell test. The Minority had their own take on the facts. However, the argument that we might see more challenges the judges hearing cases is hardly a good argument to allow Judge Benjamin to sit on this case.
The facts of this case are fairly straight forward:
In October 1998, Hugh Caperton filed suit against A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. (Massey) for tortious interference, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment. A state trial court in West Virginia rendered judgment against Massey and found it liable for $50 million in damages.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted review. However, prior to hearing, Mr. Caperton motioned for Justice Brent Benjamin to recuse himself. He argued that since Massey's C.E.O. had donated $3 million to Justice Benjamin's campaign to win a seat on the Supreme Court of Appeals, Justice Benjamin's participation would present a "constitutionally unacceptable appearance of impropriety." The motion was denied.
The WV Supreme Court of Appeals , in a 3-2 decision with Justice Benjamin voting in the majority, reversed the trial court and ordered it to dismiss the case. The denied another motion asking that Justice Benjamin to recuse himself. Thanks to law.com and OYEZ for the statement of the facts.
Judge Sotomayor is reported to have stated in a speech that,"We would never condone private gifts to judges about to decide a case implicating the gift-givers' interests, [but] our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates' campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes."
So why did the more conservative members of the high court have trouble with this decision? How can we have "Justice for All" when one party is making large contributions to the judge? As a simple matter of justice, the non-contributing party should not be at a disadvantage. Without the vote of Justice Benjamin, the trial court decision would have be upheld. The $3 million contribution was inexpensive compared to saving $50 million owed pursuant to the judgment.
