For more than 100 years, Supreme Court justices have either divested their financial interest in companies whose cases are scheduled before them or recused. In February 1910, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes sold the one share of stock his wife inherited in a company whose case was before the Court. That principled golden rule continues to date as evidenced in a press release Justice Breyer issued in October 2008 announcing that he recently sold stock holdings in a dozen companies, at least in part to minimize future recusals. Similarly, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor revealed in a Senate questionnaire that she recused at least 141 times since becoming a judge, “even when not technically required by ethical rules.” (See NY Times , “Sotomayor’s Recusals Suggest Impartiality,” Benjamin Weiser, July 2).
All of which brings us to the curious case of Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc ., No. 08-22, decided by a divided Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision released on June 8.
This content has been archived.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]
