West Virginia Business Litigation : West Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Law Office of Jeffrey V. Mehalic : Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg

There are a few more items I want to mention today about the Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company. The first is a personal statement released by Don L. Blankenship, the chairman of Massey Energy Co., and the person whose 2004 campaign contributions on behalf of Brent Benjamin created the conflict that culminated in the Court’s decision on Monday.

Blankenship’s statement is not on Massey’s website and apparently does not represent Massey’s official reaction to the decision. Massey’s statement released on Monday quotes only Shane Harvey, Massey’s general counsel and vice-president, and is far more measured than Blankenship’s.

Blankenship’s statement is his attempt to justify his substantial financial support on behalf of Justice Benjamin, even though the highest court in the country just held that his support objectively required Justice Benjamin to recuse himself from Caperton, and that Justice Benjamin's failure to due so denied Hugh Caperton and his companies due process under the United States Constitution. I guess if I were in Blankenship’s position, I’d issue a statement that was as unapologetic and arrogant as the motive behind the contributions that were at the heart of the situation.

Of more interest and, I think, far more value is this interview on The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times with Thomas R. Phillips, retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, and an author of an amicus brief in Caperton on behalf of the conference of chief justices in support of neither party.

I encourage you to read his entire interview, which is brief, but this is his analysis of the decision:

Caperton established a principle that is really important: There are constitutional concerns with a judge sitting in judgment of a case where a party is a significant donor. At some point, the support becomes so substantial and so overwhelming that due process requires the judge to step aside, even if neither the donor not [sic] the judge did anything illegal or even unethical.

(Emphasis added.)

He identifies six criteria in Caperton that must be satisfied in order to establish a violation of a party’s due process and contends that its holding is so narrow that, “I’m not sure Caperton will ever be direct precedent for another recusal.”

Finally, here’s a post from Daily Kos that’s getting quite a bit of traction around the Internet. Its title is a reference to John Grisham’s novel, The Appeal, which, by sheer coincidence, I finished reading about 2 a.m. Monday morning.

As you may be aware, when the book came out last year, Grisham stated that the story wasn't far-fetched and had already happened in West Virginia, which, allowing for some poetic license in the novel, is accurate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There has been so much reaction and commentary about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company that it is hard to know where to begin.

First, I want to discuss the dissents, which I did not do in my post yesterday  because I wanted to focus on Justice Kennedy’s opinion.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissent in which Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. He criticized the majority opinion for

enlist[ing] the Due Process Clause to overturn a judge’s failure to recuse because of a "probability of bias." Unlike the established grounds for disqualification, a "probability of bias" cannot be defined in any limited way. The Court’s new "rule" provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required. This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be. The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.

(Emphasis added.)

He also identified 40 “fundamental questions” that courts will now have to determine “with little help from the majority,” such as:

1. How much money is too much money? What level or contribution or expenditure gives rise to a ‘probability of bias’?

6. Does the analysis change depending on whether the judge whose disqualification is sought sits on a trial court, appeals court, or state supreme court?

8. What if the “disproportionately’ large expenditure is made by an industry association, trade union, physicians’ group, or the plaintiffs’ bar? Must the judge recuse in all cases that affect the association’s interests? Must the judge recuse in all cases in which a party or lawyer is a member of that group? Does it matter how much the litigant contributed to the association?

13. Must the judge’s vote be outcome determinative in order for his non-recusal to constitute a due process violation?

21. Does close personal friendship between a judge and a party or lawyer now give rise to a probability of bias?

24. Under the majority’s ‘objective’ test, do we analyze the due process issue through the lens of a reasonable person, a reasonable lawyer, or a reasonable judge?

35. What is the proper remedy? After a successful Caperton motion, must the parties start from scratch before the lower courts? Is any part of the lower court judgment retained?

Chief Justice Roberts also looked at two of the Court’s decisions in cases involving double jeopardy (United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989) and Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997)), and drew a comparison with the Court’s holding in Caperton, saying that,

The déjà vu is enough to make one swoon. Today, the majority again departs from a clear, longstanding constitutional rule to accommodate an ‘extreme’ case involving ‘grossly disproportionate’ amounts of money. I believe we will come to regret this decision as well, when courts are forced to deal with a wide variety of Caperton motions, each proclaiming the title of "most extreme" or "most disproportionate.

(Emphasis added.)

He also pointed out that, “Justice Benjamin just might have won because the voters of West Virginia thought he would be a better judge than his opponent. Unlike the majority, I cannot say with any degree of certainty that Blankenship ‘cho[se] the judge in his own cause.' Ante, at 16. I would give the voters of West Virginia more credit than that.”

(Emphasis added.)

Justice Scalia also dissented separately, and predicted that the Court’s decision would have the effect of reinforcing the perception that “litigation is just a game, that the party with the most resourceful lawyer can play it to win, that our seemingly interminable legal proceedings are wonderfully self-perpetuating but incapable of delivering real-world justice.” He also predicted that the opinion would add to “the vast arsenal of lawyerly gambits what will come to be known as the Caperton claim.”

Yesterday, Chief Justice Benjamin issued this statement regarding the decision, which was written on his official letterhead and posted on the Supreme Court of Appeals’ website, but was described as “personal” and “not a release of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.”

For coverage of the decision, let me start with Paul Nyden’s article in today’s Charleston Gazette, and Jake Stump’s article in today’s Daily Mail. Nyden also wrote an interesting sidebar about who will preside as chief justice when Chief Justice Benjamin recuses himself. I think it will be Justice Robin Davis, as she has the most seniority, but apparently no one from the Court is willing to go on the record at this point.

What is most interesting is that when the Court hears this appeal again, probably during its term that starts in September, Justice Davis, who wrote both of the previous majority opinions, will be the only member who has considered the appeal. Justices Margaret Workman and Menis Ketchum were elected last November and Justice Thomas McHugh was appointed to serve the remainder of Justice Albright's term through 2010. And the acting chief justice must appoint a replacement for Chief Justice Benjamin. So how the Court will rule for the third, and presumably last, time is very much open.

For a sampling of commentary and analysis, Tony Mauro has this article on The National Law Journal 's website; on The BLT ,he has this post about Chief Justice Roberts’ connection to United States v. Halper, one of the double jeopardy cases cited in his dissent.

Carolyn Elefant of Legal Blog Watch wrote this post yesterday about the decision, with links to Mauro, Lyle Dennis at SCOTUSBlog, and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley.  Also, here is some analysis from the Constitutional Prof Law Blog.

For a couple of different takes on the decision, here are Dahlia Lithwick's "The Great Caperton Caper" on Slate and a post from Balkinization. 

And from blogs that focus on appellate litigation, here are Todd Smith's post at Texas Appellate Law Blog, which questions the effect of the decision on Texas courts, whose members are elected, and a post from Alabama Appellate Watch, which is written by Lightfoot Franklin White LLC.  

Finally, I think there have been as many editorials as there have been news articles and blog posts about the decision. But for your consideration, here is The New York Times' editorial today entitled "Honest Justice" and The Wall Street Journal's editorial entitled "Judges and 'Bias.'" I'll leave it to you to figure out what each paper thought about the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion today in Caperton v. Massey and in a 5-4 decision held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Chief Justice Brent Benjamin to recuse himself from Caperton's appeal and reversed the Supreme Court of Appeals' decision in Massey's favor and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the majority "do not question his [Justice Benjamin's subjective findings of impartiality and propriety. Nor do we determine whether there was actual bias."

But the Court found that the "difficulties of inquiring into actual bias ... simply underscore the need for objective rules":

Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal, but this is an exceptional case... We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias -- based on objective and reasonable perceptions -- when a person with a personal stake in a particular case has had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent. The inquiry centers on the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.

(Emphasis added.)

The Court concluded, based on the application of the principle, that:

... Blankenship's campaign efforts had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing Justice Benjamin on the case. Blankenship contributed some $3 million to unseat the incumbent and replace him with Benjamin. His contributions eclipsed the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and exceeded by 300% the amount spent by Benjamin's campaign committee. App. 288a. Caperton claims Blankenship spent $1 million more than the total amount spent by the campaign committees of both candidates combined. Brief for Petitioners 28.

(Emphasis added.)

The Court rejected Massey's argument that ultimately West Virginia voters elected Justice Benjamin to the Court, stating that, "[w]hether Blankenship's campaign contributions were a necessary and sufficient cause of Benjamin's victory is not the proper inquiry. Much like determining whether a judge is actually biased, proving what ultimately drives the electorate to choose a particular candidate is a difficult endeavor, not likely to lend itself to a certain conclusion."

The Court also focused on the "temporal relationship between the campaign contributions, the justice election, and the pendency of the case...", meaning the the winner of the election would be on the Court when it reviewed the $50 million verdict:

Although there is no allegation of a quid pro quo agreement, the fact remains that Blankenship's extraordinary contributions were made at a time when he had a vested stake in the outcome. Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when -- without the consent of the other parties -- a man chooses the judge in his own cause. And applying this principle to the judicial election process, there was here a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin's recusal.

(Emphasis added.)

In describing this as "an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal," the majority opinion also rejected Massey and its amici's prediction that finding a constitutional violation in this case would result in various adverse consequences, "ranging from a flood of recusal motions to unnecessary interference with judicial elections." 

The Court found that almost every state, including West Virginia, had adopted the American Bar Association's objective standard that "a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," and also noted that the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct required a judge's recusal in similar circumstances.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent in which Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined, and Justice Scalia also dissented separately.

I'll write some more about the decision, but I wanted to provide the opinion right now.  For some additional reaction, here is SCOTUSBlog's initial post  and David Stout's article in The New York Times.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Although the Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, Massey wants the Court to review some additional information, namely, Chief Justice Benjamin's voting record in appeals involving Massey.

Yesterday Massey filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in order to

present[] the Court with information pertinent to this matter — specifically, a press release detailing Justice Benjamin’s voting record in matters involving Massey Energy Company and its affiliates — that was issued by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals after briefing was completed.  Justice Benjamin’s voting history in Massey cases bears significantly on respondents’ contention that, even if the Due Process Clause requires recusal when there is a “probability of bias,” there was no such probability here.

On Monday, Jennifer Bundy, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia's public information officer, issued a press release entitled, “Summary of Chief Justice Benjamin’s Dispositive Voting Record Regarding Massey Energy Cases from 01/01/2005 to 12/31/2008,” which was “prepared in response to press inquiries about Chief Justice Benjamin’s voting record in cases involving Massey Energy.”

According to the release, Chief Justice Benjamin voted against the interests of Massey Energy or its subsidiary 81.6% of the time, and in favor of the interests of Massey Energy or its subsidiary 18.4%. 

Caperton responded in opposition to Massey's brief yesterday and took the opportunity to remind the Court of some apparent inconsistencies in Massey’s brief, by noting the Court’s definition of “new matter”:

Such “new matter” might include a statement made by the CEO of a litigant — made after the litigant’s brief expressly denied that the CEO and a particular judge “even knew one another, before or after the election,” much less that the judge “solicited or encouraged [the CEO’s] activities” — acknowledging that the CEO and the judge had met privately before the election and discussed, specifically, “raising money.”  Compare, e.g., Resp. Br. 55–56, with Adam Liptak, Justices Hear Arguments on Money-Court Nexus, New York Times, March 4, 2009, at A18.  That would be new information “that was not available in time to be included in a brief,” S. Ct. R. 25.5, and it would tend to reinforce petitioners’ argument that the CEO had set out to pick a judge for his own case and that any reasonable observer would conclude that a judge selected under those circumstances quite probably would be biased in favor of the CEO who spent so much to elect him.

Caperton's brief also asserts that in the only Massey cases where Chief Justice Benjamin's vote was outcome-determinative, i.e., he voted with the majority in a 3-2 vote, he voted for Massey.

Here are Andrew Clevenger’s article in Tuesday’s Charleston Gazette discussing the release and his article in today’s edition discussing Massey’s brief.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I think this comment by Justice John Paul Stevens sums up Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., which was argued today before the Supreme Court:

“The whole point of this case is it [actual bias] has not been recognized.  We have never confronted a case as extreme as this before.  This fits the standard that Potter Stewart articulated when he said ‘I know it when I see it.’”

And that is what the justices are grappling with. 

The issue is whether Hugh Caperton and his companies were denied their right to due process when Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Justice Brent Benjamin refused to recuse himself from Massey’s appeal of $50 million jury verdict in Caperton's favor. 

Here are the transcript of the argument and a post from The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, which has an interview with the Journal’s Supreme Court reporter, Jess Bravin, who attended the argument and explains the significance of the justices’ questions and comments.  By the way, his discussion of Justice Stevens’ professional background may help to explain the comment referenced above.

For more analysis, here is SCOTUSBLOG’s excellent analysis of the argument, as well as an article by USA Today reporter Joan Biskupic, and the Associated Press’ story in the Charleston Gazette. 

The transcript really captures the differences between the parties’ positions.  Caperton argues that because actual bias on the part of a judge or justice is impossible to prove, the applicable standard needs to be one that focuses on the appearance of a probability of bias. 

Caperton argues that Blankenship’s $3 million contribution to a group that opposed Justice Benjamin’s opponent created the appearance of a probability of bias against Caperton in his case against Massey, which required Justice Benjamin’s recusal.

On the other hand, Massey argues that the appearance of impropriety, without any proof of actual bias, could never raise a constitutional issue, which means that Caperton’s right to due process was not violated by Justice Benjamin's refusal to recuse himself.

For what it’s worth, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been the critical fifth vote in several important decisions, said that it seemed to him that litigants have an entitlement to confidence in judges’ decisions under the Due Process Clause.   

Massey’s counsel, Andrew Frey, suggested that the justices ask themselves “if you were in Justice Benjamin's situation, do you really think that you would be incapable of rendering an impartial decision in a case involving Massey?  Because if the answer to that is no, if the answer to that is that you would not be incapable of rendering an unbiased decision, then there’s no justification for saying that Justice Benjamin would —”

Caperton’s counsel, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, countered that the appropriate question for the justices was, “[i]f this was going to be the judge in your case, would you think it would be fair and would it be a fair tribunal if the judge in your case was selected with a $3 million subsidy by your opponent?”

The Court's opinion may depend on which question the justices answer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here is the petitioners' reply brief, which they filed today. 

Also, in this order entered last Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Alabama Attorney General Troy King's motion to participate in the oral argument and to divide the argument time.  King filed an amicus brief on behalf of Alabama and six other states in support of the respondents.  The Court also granted the Supreme Court of Louisiana's motion for leave to file an amicus brief out of time, which I discussed last week.

Oral argument is scheduled for next Tuesday, March 3.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As we get closer to March 3, when the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, a state appellate court has weighed in on the controversy, but it’s probably not the court or for the reason you’d expect. 

According to this article by John O’Brien in today’s LegalNewsline.com, the Louisiana Supreme Court has moved for leave to file an amicus brief in the case, in order to refute allegations contained in a Tulane Law Review article that was cited in a brief filed by several amici on behalf of Caperton.  

Here’s the backstory.  In March 2008, the Tulane Law Review published an article entitled “The Louisiana Supreme Court in Question: An Empirical and Statistical Study of the Effects of Campaign Money on the Judicial Function,” by Vernon Valentine Palmer and John Levendis.

The first paragraph of the article’s executive summary says:

This empirical and statistical study of the Louisiana Supreme Court demonstrates that the court has been significantly influenced — wittingly or unwittingly — by the campaign contributions from litigants and lawyers appearing before it.  In a statistical sense, campaign donors enjoy a favored status among parties before the court.  Facing an aggregate of $1.3 million in political donations in the cases under review, the justices did not find reason to disqualify or recuse themselves.

No wonder, then, that the amicus brief submitted by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Reform Institute cited the article as support for their position that Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Chief Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from the Caperton case.

The only problem is that the article has been criticized for its miscalculations and flawed methodology, which prompted Tulane Law School Dean Lawrence Ponoroff to apologize to the Louisiana Supreme Court last September. 

On February 9, the Louisiana Supreme Court moved for leave to file its amicus brief out of time, in which it described the purpose for its brief:

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s purpose in filing its amicus curiae brief is to apprise this Honorable Court that the Tulane Law Review article has been thoroughly refuted because of its flawed methodology, error-laden data selection, and faulty analysis.  See, e.g., Robert Newman, Janet Speyrer & Dek Terrell, A Methodological Critique of The Louisiana Supreme Court in Question: An Empirical and Statistical Study of the Effects of Campaign Money on the Judicial Function, 69 LA. L. REV. 307 (2009); and because of its erroneous data collection, selection and analysis, see Kevin R. Tully & E. Phelps Gay, The Louisiana Supreme Court Defended: A Rebuttal of The Louisiana Supreme Court in Question: An Empirical and Statistical Study of the Effects of Campaign Money on the Judicial Function, 69 LA. L. REV. 281 (2009).  Due to the grave errors in the article, the Dean of the Tulane Law School issued a formal written apology  to the Louisiana Supreme Court and to its Justices.  And, the Tulane Law Review posted an Erratum on its website expressing deep regret over the article’s errors.

Here’s the Erratum on the law review’s website:

The Louisiana Supreme Court in Question: An Empirical Statistical Study of the Effects of Campaign Money on the Judicial Function, published in Volume 82 of the Tulane Law Review at 1291 (2008), was based on empirical data coded by the authors, but the data contained numerous coding errors.  Tulane Law Review learned of the coding errors after the publication.  Necessarily, these errors call into question some or all of the conclusions in the study as published.  The Law Review deeply regrets the errors. 

Counsel for the Louisiana Supreme Court and the writers of its amicus brief are Kevin R. Tully and E. Phelps Gay, who also wrote one of the two rebuttals to the Tulane Law Review article published this year in the Louisiana Law Review.

On a lighter note, if such a thing exists in the case, is this front-page article from Monday’s USA Today by Joan Biskupic, entitled “At the Supreme Court, a case with the feel of a best seller.”

Also today, The Wall Street Journal Law Blog published this post about Andrew Frey and Theodore Olson, who will argue for the parties at the Supreme Court.  Frey and Olson are two of the most experienced and best known appellate lawyers in the country, which should make for an excellent argument.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In its February issue, the ABA Journal has a feature by John Gibeaut entitled "Caperton's Coal," about, what else, Hugh Caperton and Harman Mining's lawsuit against Massey, and its aftermath.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Five amicus briefs were filed yesterday in support of A. T. Massey Coal Company.  They are:

• Brief of Amicus Curiae Center for Competitive Politics in Support of Respondents;
• Brief of Law Professors Ronald D. Rotunda and and Michael R. Dimino as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents;
• Brief of the States of Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Utah as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents;
• Brief of Ten Current and Former Chief Justices and Justices as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents; and
• Brief of Amicus Curiae James Madison Center for Free Speech Supporting Respondents.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I’ll get back to posting from LegalTech New York, but I want to talk about an order entered last Friday by Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Chief Justice Brent Benjamin.

As most everyone knows, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 3 in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. on the issue of the effect of Massey chairman Don Blankenship’s $3 million in contributions to an organization that ultimately benefited Chief Justice Benjamin’s 2004 campaign for the Court. 

Now, confronted with a motion to disqualify him from State ex rel. Central Energy Company v. The Honorable Ronald E. Wilson and Mountain State Carbon, LLC, No. 082333 (Central Energy Company is a Massey subsidiary), Chief Justice Benjamin has temporarily recused himself from all cases involving Massey, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton. 

Here are the recusal order and a 14-page memorandum, in which Chief Justice Benjamin explained that, although he does not believe that his disqualification is warranted “based upon the motion as presented, the facts and records of this case, these parties’ previous actual record before me, and the current law of West Virginia and the United States[,]”

It would be personally and judicially disrespectful to the United States Supreme Court and its Justices for me to proceed in this or any other matter involving Massey Energy Company while the Caperton matter is pending.  It would likewise be improper for this Court to delay matters involving Massey Energy Company, particularly matters such as this involving injunctions, while the Caperton matter is pending before that Court.

Justice Robin Davis will serve as acting Chief Justice in matters involving Massey and will appoint a replacement while Caperton is pending before the Supreme Court.

Also, on Monday, AmericanLawyer.com's Andrew Longstreth discussed the Caperton appeal and asked Andrew Frey of Mayer Brown, who will argue for Massey before the Supreme Court , about the disparity in the number of amicus briefs filed in support of Caperton and Massey.  Frey said that he anticipates “three or five” briefs in support of Massey, including the one to be filed by Alabama Attorney General Troy King on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys General, which I discussed last week.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A. T. Massey Coal Company filed its merits brief yesterday, which leaves only the filing of amicus briefs in support of Massey's position, which are due by next Wednesday, February 4.

It doesn't seem likely that Massey will attract as many amici as the plaintiffs did, which I provided in this post, but one brief that will be filed on its behalf will come from Alabama Attorney General Troy King for the National Association of Attorneys General.

Dan Schweitzer, Supreme Court counsel for the NAAG, sent out this email, which enclosed a memorandum describing the proposed brief.

Here is the memorandum's description:

To be clear, Alabama will not be taking sides in the election vs. appointment vs. merit-selection debate in this brief.  Nor will Alabama be attempting to downplay the seriousness of the allegations of impropriety here.  Instead, Alabama will focus solely on the following federalism point: Once a state has chosen its preferred method of selecting judges -- whatever that method is -- states should have the ability to police judicial participation through carefully constructed state recusal policies.  In other words, making recusal a federal issue by "constitutionalizing" it is unnecessary and, as a practical matter, unwise.

The memorandum also outlines potential arguments to be raised in the brief:

• It would be extraordinarily difficult to craft a meaningful "principle" underlying a generic federal due process right to recusal.
• Federalizing the issue burdens the courts.
• Federalizing the issue is unnecessary because the States are currently handling the issue with their own rules and regulations.
• Making the failure to recuse a potential constitutional rights violation will effectively cause many judges to recuse unnecessarily.

Here is The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog's post from last week about the memorandum (with a now-outdated photograph of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia), including a link to Paul J. Nyden's article in the Charleston Gazette.

I'll post the NAAG amicus brief and any others.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here are the amicus briefs that have been filed thus far in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc.:

Brief of 27 Former Chief Justices and Justices in Support of Petitioners;

Brief of Public Citizen in Support of Petitioners;

Brief of Justice At Stake, the American Judicature Society, Appleseed, Common Cause, the Constitutional Accountability Center, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, the League of Women Voters, the National Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Judicial Campaign Conduct, the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, the Colorado Judicial Institute, Democracy North Carolina, the Fund for Modern Courts, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, Justice For All, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Fund, the Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts, the NC Center for Voter Education, Ohio Citizen Action, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, Texans for Public Justice,the Washington Appellate Lawyers Association, Washington Appleseed, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Chicago Appleseed, and the Chicago Council of Lawyers in Support of Petitioner;

Brief of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Reform Institute in Support of Petitioners;

Brief of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers in Support of Petitioners;

Brief of the Committee for Economic Development, Intel Corporation, the Lockheed Martin Corporation, PepsiCo, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana, the Illinois Association of Defense Counsel, and Transparency International – USA in Support of Petitioners;

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioners;

Brief of the American Bar Association in Support of Petitioners;

Brief of the American Association for Justice in Support of Petitioners;

Brief of Center for Political Accountability and the Carol and Lawrence Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research in Support of Petitioners; and

Brief of the Conference of Chief Justices in Support of Neither Party

January 5 was the deadline for amicus briefs in support of the  petitioners.  The respondents' merits brief is due by January 28, and amicus briefs supporting their position are due by February 4.

Also, in a story by Justin Anderson in today's (Charleston, West Virginia) Daily Mail, Richard A. Brisbin, Jr., associate professor in the Political Science Department at West Virginia University, discusses the political agendas of some of the groups that have filed amicus briefs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It seems fitting to end the year with a post about the appeal in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., which promises to stay in the headlines in 2009, with oral arguments scheduled for March 3. 

Here is the petitioners’ merits brief (courtesy of petitioners’ counsel Bruce Stanley), which was filed on Monday, and presents the following question for the Supreme Court’s consideration:

Justice Brent Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused to recuse himself from the appeal of the $50 million jury verdict in this case, even though the CEO of the lead defendant spent $3 million supporting his campaign for a seat on the court – more than 60% of the total amount spent to support Justice Benjamin’s campaign – while preparing to appeal the verdict against his company.  After winning election to the court, Justice Benjamin cast the deciding vote in the court’s 3-2 decision overturning that verdict.  The question presented is whether Justice Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself from participation in his principal financial supporter’s case violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Paul Nyden wrote about the brief and cited some other excerpts in today’s Charleston Gazette.  According to his article, amicus briefs in support of the petitioners are due by January 5, Massey’s merits brief is due by January 28, and amicus briefs supporting its position are due by February 4.  I’ll post the briefs as they are filed.

Happy New Year to everyone!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an eagerly awaited decision, the Supreme Court of the United States today granted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Hugh Caperton and Harman Mining from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s reversal of a $50 million verdict in their favor.  Here is the Court's order, which included decisions on cert petitions in several cases.

Harman and Caperton alleged that Supreme Court of Appeals Justice Brent Benjamin’s refusal to recuse himself from the case, in which A. T. Massey Coal Company was a defendant, deprived them of a fair and impartial tribunal. 

In Justice Benjamin’s 2004 campaign, Massey chairman Don Blankenship played a pivotal role by personally spending $3 million on behalf of an organization that directly or indirectly benefited Justice Benjamin.

Here are Caperton and Harman's petition for the writ, Massey's response in opposition, and amicus briefs submitted on behalf of Caperton and Harman by the American Bar Association, Public Citizen, and the Washington Appellate Lawyers Association, all courtesy of plaintiffs’ counsel Bruce Stanley.

The appeal has focused attention on the issue of contributions in judicial elections.  The New York Times published an editorial yesterday, entitled "Tainted Justice", in which in which it urged the Court to accept the petition and questioned why the Court had taken so long to make a decision.  According to the Court's docket, the petition had been considered on four prior occasions before today.

Bloomberg.com , Dow Jones Newswire, and The Charleston Gazette have written stories today on the Court's decision to accept the petition..

In the Sunday Gazette-Mail on November 9, Paul J. Nyden wrote about the Court's ongoing consideration of the petition and discussed other media outlets that had urged the Court to accept the appeal.   

Finally, here are some posts I've written about the case when Caperton hired former Solicitor General Ted Olson to prosecute the Supreme Court appeal,  the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed Caperton's verdict for a second time, and Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself from the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks