Supreme Court: Benjamin Should Have Recused Himself
Posted Monday, June 8, 2009 ; 11:52 AM | View Comments | Post Comment
Updated Monday, June 8, 2009 ; 04:40 PM
Chief Justice Brent Benjamin says the ruling places more due process emphasis on perceptions and independent actions of outside parties than on a judge's actual conduct.
Story by Gretchen Mae Stone
The battle between Massey Energy Co. and Hugh Caperton will return to the West Virginia Supreme Court after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday that state Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 5-4 that the state Supreme Court of Appeals must revisit its 2008 ruling regarding a lawsuit between the Raleigh County businessman and Massey Energy Co.
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the 19-page ruling.
The courts decision read, in part, We find that, in all the circumstances of this case, due process requires recusal.
Caperton had alleged that Massey put his coal mining company out of business. Caperton and his company sued Massey, winning $50 million in Boone County Circuit Court, a decision that was twice reversed in the state Supreme Court.
Caperton appealed the state Supreme Court decision to the nation's highest court on the grounds that Benjamin should have recused himself because Massey CEO Don Blankenship raised funds for his campaign and contributed heavily to a special-interest group that advocated against Benjamin's opponent.
Justices said the question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether a person's right to due process under the 14th amendment is violated when a justice refuses to recuse him or herself.
The majority opinion states, The fact remains that Blankenships 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.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote a 14-page dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice Scalia wrote an additional two-page dissent.
Roberts wrote, I, of course, share the majoritys sincere concerns about the need to maintain a fair, independent, and impartial judiciary and one that appears to be such. But I fear that the Courts decision will undermine rather than promote these values.
Benjamin issued a statement Monday afternoon saying the High Court's decision establishes a new standard that focuses on the perceptions created by activities of people other than judges.
"In focusing on the issue of due process, the Supreme Courts majority opinion recognizes that there is no 'white line' to guide judges like me in resolving the issue of an elected judges duty to remain on a case versus the need to remove oneself due to external factors," he wrote in a statement.
"The Supreme Courts new standard appears to focus on the perceptions created regarding the impact on due process in a given case caused by the activities of persons other than the judge in question," he continued. "Specifically, the Supreme Court focuses on whether there may be a risk to due process in a case when an external partys influence in a given situation, such as in an election, is sufficiently substantial that it must be presumed to engender the potential for actual bias by a judge despite there being no direct relationship between the judge and the external party, and despite the lack of any benefit to the judge.
"This is a very fact-specific new standard. The focus of 'potential for bias' now places more due process emphasis on perceptions and independent actions of external parties than on a judges actual conduct or record. For example, my four-year record of voting 81 percent of the time against Masseys interests would now be only a part of the factors to be balanced in a recusal consideration.
"I am confident that there will be a lot of posturing and politicizing about this decision from all sides, as there has been with so many aspects of this case. Such a response would be counter to the philosophy of removing politics from the court, which all fair-minded people share. I would hope instead that the decision be given a fair and sober reading, and that it be respected as all decisions of the United States Supreme Court should be."
Caperton said he is "tickled to death the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in our favor.
"We know this is not only an important case for myself and my family. It means so much to all the people who were hurt by this ruling, all the employees who lost medical benefits and small companies that supported Harman Mining Corporation over the years," he said.
This has been over 11 years now, so weve fought it a long time. I have an 11-year-old daughter and this is all shes ever known," he added.
Robert Berthold, one of Capertons attorneys, said they look forward to "what hopefully will be the final adjudication of the case before the West Virginia Supreme Court.
We want to put all these previous issues behind us and were looking forward to this case, he said.
Berthold said its an unusual situation, but he imagines the state Supreme Court might set the case for a hearing in its fall term.
With the amounts of money involved in this case and, as the Supreme Court noted, there is no analogous situation anywhere in the country. I think the court made it clear this was a unique case involving fairly unique circumstances.
Massey Energy released a statement just after the decision came out June 8.
"While we are disappointed in the outcome of the Court's close vote, our outlook about the ultimate resolution of this legal matter remains positive, said Shane Harvey, Massey vice president and general counsel.
We are confident that the Harman case was properly decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court initially and believe that any new examination of the same facts and same laws by new justices should yield the same result as before."
The State Supreme Court issued a statement immediately following the decision.
The West Virginia Supreme Court will follow the United States Supreme Court mandate, the statement said.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Capertons favor could affect recusals nationwide.
Capertons brief said Benjamins decision creates a rift in how recusals should be handled in lower courts and threatens public confidence in state and court systems nationwide.
The case could form a basis for policy on when judges and justices have to recuse themselves due to an appearance of impropriety and bias, not just provable bias. Benjamin has stated in briefs that appearance of impropriety can never be a basis for a judges recusal.
Former Chief Justice Elliott E. Maynard ruled in the first state Supreme Court case, but he recused himself after photographs on the French Riviera were published of his vacation with Blankenship, CEO and then president of Massey Energy,.
Benjamin, acting as the chief justice, cast the deciding vote in the second 3-2 decision. Benjamin then entered a concurring opinion defending his refusal to step down from hearing the case.
In the original case, Caperton alleged Massey drove his company out of business by buying up a middleman company that purchased Harman Mining coal and then switching that contract to Massey coal. Harman Mining was eventually forced into bankruptcy.
Caperton asked for Benjamins recusal in the appeals case because Blankenship funneled campaign funding into a tax-exempt organization known as And For The Sake of the Kids during the 2004 election.
Blankenship gave more than $3 million in the campaign to unseat former Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw, who was up for re-election. Caperton insists that amounted to support for Benjamin, who won his seat to the Supreme Court in 2004. Blankenship also headed a fundraising drive and letter-writing campaign that netted about $800,000 for Benjamins campaign.
Blankenship made a single $1,000 contribution to Benjamins campaign in his own name.
Benjamin participated in a number of cases involving Massey Energy, and Capertons was the first request for recusal in one of those cases, according to Massey documents in Caperton.
He since has voluntarily recused himself in all other cases involving Massey Energy subsidiaries.
According to the majority opinion, The facts now before us are extreme by any measure. The parties point to no other instance involving judicial campaign contributions that presents a potential for bias comparable to the circumstances in this case.
The large scale of the case did not dissuade the dissenting judges however that the decision could burden judges on bias claims.
The dissent stated, The Courts 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.
Copyright 2009 West Virginia Media.
http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=60563
Here's the thing, it seems very clear that the conservatives on the Court were picked for the expected outcomes of their decisions. Always deciding for big business being one of the outcomes they were picked for. Can a Justice be impeached for that? Should they?
I dont see why its the school's business. And Roberts' argument was it aint speech because the message was obtuse? WTH kind of argument is that?
