The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2009 ruling in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. may have planted a bull’s-eye on judicial impartiality, prompting many states to revisit their recusal rules with the hopes of eradicating bias from the bench. But so far, the recusal reform movement has entailed mostly talk, little action.
Judges in most states still have the final say on whether to step down. Caperton called for review of recusal decisions after holding that a West Virginia judge should have removed himself from a case involving a party that had given his campaign $3 million. But no judges appear to have stepped aside because of Caperton. And although at least 10 states have proposed new judicial disqualification rules since Caperton, only three — Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin — have adopted changes. Michigan is the only state post-Caperton to make it tougher for judges to refuse to recuse themselves.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
