466:, despite its equally significant constitutional implications, as he and his brother had contracted with Martin to buy the land in dispute. Moreover, during the 19th century, the U.S. federal court system was structured so that an appeal from a judge's decision was often heard by an appellate panel containing the same judge, who was expected to sit in impartial review of his own earlier ruling. This situation is no longer permissible, and 28 U.S.C. § 47 provides that "No judge shall hear or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him."
585:
of recusal included: unknown ownership via brokers investing on behalf of the judge, being unaware of the laws regarding disclosure and recusal, spelling errors and ownership of subsidiaries (e.g. Exxon Corp. vs Exxon Oil, which is a subsidiary), ownership of stocks held not by the judge but by close family members (spouses, children, etc.), and insistence that stock ownership did not influence their decisions (especially if the outcome did not change stock price). All of these explanations are still a violation of federal law.
77:
2671:
2661:
1102:
1024:
810:
876:
769:
36:
365:
disqualified from hearing the case. However, if the pay increase is applicable to all of the judges in the court system, the judge will keep the case, because the grounds for recusal would be equally applicable to any other judge. The principle that a judge will not be disqualified when the effect would be that no judge could hear the case is sometimes referred to as the "
353:(on their own motion), recognizing that facts leading to their disqualification are present. However, where such facts exist, a party to the case may suggest recusal. Controversially, each judge generally decides whether or not to recuse themself. However, where lower courts are concerned, an erroneous refusal to recuse in a clear case can be reviewed on
1088:. If a judge does not recuse themselves when they should have known to do so, they may be subject to sanctions, which vary by jurisdiction. Depending on the jurisdiction, if an appellate court finds a judgment to have been made when the judge in question should have been recused, it may set aside the judgment and return the case for retrial.
298:, public officials who recuse themselves from certain matters may still engage in public comment under specific conditions, such as the "Public Forum Exception". However, this exception is limited and does not allow officials to represent others or act as expert witnesses in forums restricted to the general public.
339:
The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was
324:
might reasonably be questioned". The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning
264:
employees should recuse themselves if their decisions could have a direct and predictable effect on their financial interests or those of their family members or close associates. However, even in cases where the conflict does not mandate recusal under the Code of Ethics, public officials might still
213:
The term "recuse" originates from the Latin word "recusare," meaning "to demur," or "object" reflecting the fundamental principle of rejecting participation when impartiality is in doubt. The word "recuse" traces its origins to the Anglo-French term "recuser," meaning "to refuse," which itself comes
584:
s investigative team found that 131 judges did not recuse themselves in cases where they had a financial interest through ownership of stocks in the relevant parties. Two-thirds of such cases ended with a verdict favorable to the party in which the judge owned stock. Explanations given for the lack
1342:
Roman law was even more expansive. Pursuant to the Code of
Justinian, a party who believed that a judge was 'under suspicion' was permitted to 'recuse' that judge prior to the time issue was joined. This power on the part of early litigants to effect a judge's 'recusal' provided the basis for the
592:
despite a conflict involving his former law partner. This case highlighted the ongoing challenges in maintaining impartiality and the evolving nature of recusal practices. Throughout much of its history, the U.S. Supreme Court relied on the justices' discretion and common-law principles to decide
399:
syndicate. Justices also have declined to participate in cases in which close relatives, such as their children, are lawyers for one of the parties. Even if the family member is connected to one of the parties but is not directly involved in the case, justices may recuse themselves – for instance
289:
Personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or the lawyer of that party is a significant ground for recusal in the United States. The Due
Process clauses of the United States Constitution explicitly require judges to recuse themselves from cases where there is a strong possibility the decision
701:. When a member of a multi-member administrative body is recused, the remaining members typically determine the outcome. When the sole occupant of an official position is recused, the matter may be delegated to the official's deputy or to a temporarily designated official; for example, when the
272:
The presence of financial interests that could be affected by the outcome of a case is another critical reason for recusal. For U.S. federal judges, this includes any ownership of legal or equitable interests, no matter how small, or relationships such as director or adviser in the affairs of a
364:
In certain special situations, circumstances that would otherwise call for recusal of a judge or group of judges may be disregarded, when otherwise no judge would be available to hear the case. For example, if a case concerns a salary increase payable to a judge, that judge would ordinarily be
605:
judge with a history of active involvement in the civil rights struggle was not obligated to recuse himself from presiding over litigation concerning claims of racial discrimination. He held, in an opinion that was followed by later judges, including a series of black judges who faced recusal
294:, however, mere allegations of bias or prejudice are inadequate; there must be substantive evidence to compel recusal. Some Judges and officials are advised to recuse themselves from cases where they have engaged in policy advocacy or public comments that could affect their impartiality. In
220:
is sometimes used interchangeably with recusal, but has also been seen as distinct from recusal in certain jurisdictions where a disqualification can lead to a case being thrown out after the fact if a judge had a conflict of interest in a case where they did not recuse themselves.
484:
wrote a short opinion suggesting that the decision that Black should sit in the case was Black's alone and the Court did not endorse it. The dispute aggravated infighting between Black and
Jackson, and it has been suggested that this was one of the reasons that, when Chief Justice
204:
Some recusal systems have been critiqued as not being robust or sufficiently transparent, prompting calls for reform. Proposed changes include mandatory disclosure of campaign expenditures by litigants and stricter recusal standards for those benefiting from interested parties.
185:, and maintaining public confidence in the legal system. Historical and modern legal frameworks outline specific grounds for recusal, such as personal or financial conflicts of interest, prior involvement in a case, or demonstrated bias. Applicable statutes or canons of
1162:
The recusal rule may be avoided or ignored if all parties and the judge agree, although in practice this rarely occurs. If recusal is avoided in this manner, a full and complete record of the facts that qualify as grounds, above, must be made for the appellate court.
189:
may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or decision-maker must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned, and more likely that there is
479:
case, although a former law partner of Black argued for the prevailing side. The losing party in the 5–4 decision sought reargument on the ground that Black should have been disqualified; Black declined to recuse himself and the decision stood, but
Justice
725:
campaign team. In Rhode Island, best practices suggest that an official should leave the room during discussions of the matter they are recused from, especially in executive sessions where the presence of the recused individual could be inappropriate.
1005:
The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome. This particular ground varies by jurisdiction. Some require recusal if there is any interest at all in the outcome, while others only require recusal if there is interest beyond a certain
662:
Have an independent decision-maker other than the justice being accused of impartiality make the recusal decision. This also can help to prevent the awkward situation of a judge holding a grudge against the party insisting that bias exists.
688:
In
Supreme Court cases, for example, when recusal could swing the outcome of a case, justices could be allowed to have substitute judges without conflicts of interest take their place in order to prevent gamesmanship of the system.
671:
This would allow for recusals to occur without adding undue costs on the litigants. For example, automatic recusal could be required for cases where a party has made campaign contributions to a judge above a specific amount.
2578:
758:
247:, went in a different direction where recusal was required less often. This included the United States, which inherited a system where only judges with a direct financial interest in a case had to recuse themselves.
201:, where they are regarded as cornerstones of judicial impartiality. The concept of recusal dates back to ancient legal systems and has evolved to address contemporary ethical standards and legal complexities.
2045:
1603:
214:
from the Middle French and Latin "recusare." The Latin roots break down into "re-" meaning "back" and "causari," meaning "to give a reason," which derives from "causa," meaning "cause" or "reason".
418:
stepped down from the bench when cases were argued by
Arizona attorney James Brosnahan, who had testified against Rehnquist at his confirmation hearing in 1986. Whatever the reason for recusal, the
589:
325:
the same case or has expressed an opinions concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
718:
336:
that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party", the case shall be transferred to another judge.
2016:
2674:
1333:
729:
Concepts analogous to recusal also exist in the legislative branch. Members with a personal financial interest in a measure should not vote according to the rules of the
540:
87:
2151:
1818:
680:
Requiring opinions for the denial or approval of recusals would help to establish a track record of evidence that would make it easier for appeals courts to review.
2384:
2356:
1766:
1681:
1279:
446:
Historically, standards for recusal in the
Supreme Court and lower courts were less rigorous than they have become in more recent years. In the 1803 case of
2389:
550:
In 2009, the
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that 'excessive' campaign contributions to a justice that was elected required a justice to recuse himself, citing the
535:
654:
of judges, which is in use in 17 states where each party gets the chance to pass on the judge selected and can still challenge the next judge for cause.
260:
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual's duties and responsibilities are in opposition to their personal or financial interests. For example,
1899:
643:
Disclosure requirements make it easier and more cost-efficient for parties to determine whether their judge may have a financial conflict of interest.
2067:
431:, convicted of a 1994 murder, in which a full three justices recused themselves due to personal ties to the victim's son, federal appeals court judge
414:, whose policies were the subject of the case. On occasion, recusal occurs under more unusual circumstances; for example, in two cases, Chief Justice
460:
two years prior could be seen as the subject of the proceeding. On the other hand, Marshall did recuse himself in both the 1813 and 1816 hearings of
2710:
261:
475:
2592:
1084:
A judge who has grounds to recuse themself is expected to do so. If a judge does not know that grounds exist to recuse themselves the error is
754:
734:
702:
566:
316:(the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or
2320:
705:
is recused from a case, the Deputy
Solicitor General will handle the matter in his or her place. For example, in 1990, U.S. Attorney General
387:, the Justices have historically recused themselves from participating in cases in which they have financial interests. For example, Justice
1356:
544:
2133:
2529:
1522:
529:
groups that Scalia's participation created an appearance of impropriety because Scalia had recently participated in a widely publicized
519:
1445:
2349:
2310:
950:
Laws or court rules provide the recusal of judges. Although the details vary, the following are nearly universal grounds for recusal.
622:, warning that his recusal would "disqualify not only an obscure district judge such as the author of this opinion, but also Justices
384:
378:
313:
1149:
1071:
937:
919:
857:
796:
278:
139:
121:
63:
1922:
886:
606:
requests, that a judge should not be forced to recuse solely because of their membership in a minority group. Jewish federal Judge
457:
2198:
1472:
619:
307:
391:
generally did not participate in cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in these firms, and
Justice
328:
28 U.S.C. Section 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge", provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a
281:, for example, explicitly require judges to recuse themselves from cases where they have a financial interest in the outcome.
1127:
1049:
835:
714:
610:
relied on the Higginbotham opinion in part in his 2014 decision not to recuse himself from the trial of Palestinian-American
317:
2638:
181:. This practice is fundamental to ensuring fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings, preserving the integrity of the
2705:
2664:
2342:
1956:
981:
The judge has previously acted in the case in question as an attorney for a party, or participated in some other capacity.
1254:
2554:
2507:
1654:
462:
329:
265:
choose to recuse themselves voluntarily to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety. This also applies to cases when
1852:
1556:
411:
1112:
1034:
901:
820:
103:
1982:
1527:
709:
recused himself from an investigation due to his connection with a subject involved in the case. On March 2, 2017,
1889:
1131:
1116:
1053:
1038:
897:
839:
824:
2549:
2455:
2404:
2046:"1.7 The Appearance of Justice: A Historical Case Study Evaluating One Supreme Court Justice's Recusal Decisions"
406:
178:
745:
Documenting recusal decisions in writing is sometimes recommended to clarify the scope and ensure transparency.
340:
recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in
2700:
2631:
2524:
2424:
1607:
1123:
1045:
831:
782:
312:
In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of
236:
49:
2165:
1707:
1494:
2086:
2571:
2470:
2053:
2021:
1190:
698:
737:. In such cases, the Senator or Representative may record a vote of "present" rather than "yea" or "nay".
2624:
1676:
1274:
569:
cases where their spouses have taken public stances or been involved in efforts to overturn the election.
388:
2695:
2170:
1712:
1499:
1259:
420:
269:
have close personal or professional relationships with attorneys or other parties involved in the case.
510:, a case challenging the validity of certain arrests, even though Rehnquist had previously served as a
395:
has disqualified himself in some cases involving insurance companies because of his participation in a
2193:
1467:
972:
unless pleading purporting to make the Judge a party is false (determined by presiding judge, but see
2365:
730:
651:
456:
participated in the decision and authored the opinion of the Court even though Marshall's actions as
415:
396:
233:
and early Jewish law, which disqualified judges from serving on cases of family, friends or enemies.
174:
547:, after giving a public speech in which Scalia stated his view that Newdow's claims were meritless.
533:
trip with the Vice President. The same year, however, Scalia recused himself without explanation in
2514:
1416:
1388:
627:
501:
358:
2414:
2145:
1894:
1173:
974:
955:
551:
486:
448:
424:
will record that the named justice "took no part in the consideration or decision of this case".
274:
2068:"COMMONWEALTH OF PA. v. LOCAL U. 542, INT. U. OF OP. ENG. – 388 F.Supp. 155 (1974) – Leagle.com"
588:
A significant dispute over recusal occurred in 1946 when Justice Hugo Black participated in the
1890:"Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases"
2617:
2534:
2316:
2297:
2276:
2255:
2091:
1990:
1930:
1860:
1826:
1760:
1742:
594:
481:
469:
A notable dispute over recusal in U.S. Supreme Court history took place in 1946, when Justice
432:
197:
Recusal laws and guidelines are established in various legal systems worldwide, including the
2301:
2259:
1746:
2645:
2539:
2487:
2267:
Bassett, Debra Lyn (May 2002). "Judicial Disqualification in the Federal Appellate Courts".
1440:
954:
The judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within three
623:
602:
526:
428:
1738:
The Fox Guarding the Henhouse?: Recusal and the Procedural Void in the Court of Last Resort
2465:
2399:
706:
615:
562:
490:
401:
320:", provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
2544:
2502:
2017:"131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest"
1310:
1085:
515:
506:
494:
392:
333:
291:
1983:"How the US supreme court could be a key election issue: 'They've grown too powerful'"
2689:
2429:
1361:
710:
453:
266:
198:
2087:"Should Jewish Judges Recuse Themselves From Cases Involving Palestinian Terrorism?"
1411:
1383:
2519:
2492:
2419:
2394:
2379:
1885:
788:
722:
558:
497:
to succeed Stone rather than promote a sitting Associate Justice to Chief Justice.
440:
321:
295:
99:
55:
1819:"Word for Word/Scalia's Defense; A Case of Blind Justice Among a Bunch of Friends"
1923:"Samuel Alito's refusal to recuse himself in Trump v US is another ethics breach"
1550:
27:
Abstaining from participation in an official action due to a conflict of interest
2246:
Abramson, Leslie W. (1994). "Deciding Recusal Motions: Who Judges the Judges?".
1101:
1023:
999:
809:
611:
607:
522:
511:
191:
166:
2610:
2475:
1551:"28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge"
1168:
989:
470:
349:
240:
2280:
2230:
1994:
1934:
1864:
1830:
2579:
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No 2)
2450:
1957:"Alito says the Supreme Court's fake ethics code allows him to be unethical"
1177:
230:
182:
1305:
1180:
may have the right to substitute a judge, even if no bias is demonstrated.
2106:
1736:
2585:
2497:
2481:
2409:
2015:
James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones and Joe Palazzolo (September 28, 2021).
1646:
1620:
1578:
985:
962:
525:
was a party in his official capacity, despite the contention of several
2334:
1853:"Campaign Contributions Can Lead to Judicial Bias, Supreme Court Rules"
969:
697:
Outside the judicial system, the concept of recusal is also applied in
530:
244:
1343:
broad recusal laws that still exist in many civil law countries today.
514:
lawyer and opined that the arrest program was valid. In 2004, Justice
239:
countries still have significant disqualification privileges, whereas
17:
995:
759:
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet
436:
354:
186:
2231:"Specifying Grounds for Judicial Disqualification in Federal Courts"
2132:
Shear, Eric Lichtblau, Michael D.; Savage, Charlie (March 2, 2017).
904:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
1172:
and a party believes the judge has a bias the party may motion for
2434:
158:
2312:
Judicial disqualification: Recusal and disqualification of judges
1357:"Supreme Court Digs in on Recusal Practices Criticized as Opaque"
443:
and Clarence Thomas. The death sentence was upheld all the same.
2460:
1523:"Recusal: Analysis of Case Law Under 28 U.S.C. ss 455 & 144"
1255:"Due Process and Judicial Disqualification: The Need for Reform"
518:
wrote an opinion declining to recuse himself in a case to which
170:
162:
2338:
1677:"Recommendation: Recusal Rules for Administrative Adjudicators"
1275:"Recommendation: Recusal Rules for Administrative Adjudicators"
1095:
1017:
869:
803:
762:
70:
29:
599:
Comm. of Pa. v. Local 542, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers
2288:
Bassett, Debra Lyn (2005). "Recusal and the Supreme Court".
543:
case challenging inclusion of the words "under God" in the
500:
In 1973, then-Associate Justice Rehnquist wrote a lengthy
169:
steps aside from participating in a case due to potential
721:
due to concerns over his impartiality as a member of the
439:, and had led the confirmation efforts on behalf of both
893:
95:
1009:
The judge determines he or she cannot act impartially.
1334:"The History of Judicial Disqualification in America"
357:
or, under extreme circumstances, by a petition for a
1355:
Robinson, Kimberly Strawbridge (November 14, 2023).
717:, recused himself while the department investigated
427:
A notable case was the 2001 death penalty appeal by
2675:
Conflicts of interest on Knowledge (XXG) (category)
2602:
2563:
2443:
2372:
2134:"Jeff Sessions Recuses Himself From Russia Inquiry"
1795:, 408 U.S. 824 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers).
984:The judge prepared any legal instrument (such as a
618:refused to recuse himself in a case concerning the
347:At times justices or judges will recuse themselves
1446:Texas District & County Attorneys Association
379:Supreme Court of the United States § Ethics
2081:
2079:
2077:
1807:, 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers).
630:... each having been both a Jew and a Zionist".
614:. Similarly, in 1994, Jewish then-federal-Judge
2385:Conflict of interest in the healthcare industry
1685:. Committee on Adjudication. December 21, 2018
1682:Administrative Conference of the United States
1283:. Committee on Adjudication. December 21, 2018
1280:Administrative Conference of the United States
2350:
992:) whose validity or construction is at issue.
565:have refused calls to recuse themselves from
84:The examples and perspective in this article
8:
2166:"Guide to Recusal and Conflicts of Interest"
2150:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1708:"Guide to Recusal and Conflicts of Interest"
1495:"Guide to Recusal and Conflicts of Interest"
435:. Luttig had previously clerked for Justice
2555:Sponsorship of continuing medical education
1651:North Carolina Prosecutor's Resource Online
1130:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1052:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
838:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
797:Learn how and when to remove these messages
536:Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
64:Learn how and when to remove these messages
2357:
2343:
2335:
2194:"Recusal Best Practices for DOI Employees"
1765:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
1468:"Recusal Best Practices for DOI Employees"
1735:Roberts, Caprice L. (December 12, 2005),
1150:Learn how and when to remove this message
1072:Learn how and when to remove this message
938:Learn how and when to remove this message
920:Learn how and when to remove this message
858:Learn how and when to remove this message
719:Russian interference in the 2016 election
229:Judicial disqualifcation laws existed in
140:Learn how and when to remove this message
122:Learn how and when to remove this message
2390:Conflicts of interest on Knowledge (XXG)
593:recusal matters. In 1974, federal judge
1741:(SSRN Scholarly Paper), Rochester, NY,
1253:Serbulea, Gabriel D. (April 20, 2011).
1222:
693:Administrative agency and other matters
2593:R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy
2143:
1805:Cheney v. United States District Court
1758:
1702:
1700:
1657:School of Government. December 1, 2023
1166:If a judge fails to recuse themselves
755:R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy
703:Solicitor General of the United States
1439:Westerfeld, Andrea (September 2010).
1248:
1246:
7:
2315:. Berkeley: Banks & Jordan Law.
1300:
1298:
1244:
1242:
1240:
1238:
1236:
1234:
1232:
1230:
1228:
1226:
1128:adding citations to reliable sources
1050:adding citations to reliable sources
836:adding citations to reliable sources
2530:Pharmaceutical sales representative
998:judge previously handled case as a
385:Supreme Court of the United States
314:Title 28 of the United States Code
25:
2111:LII / Legal Information Institute
1902:from the original on May 29, 2024
1625:LII / Legal Information Institute
1583:LII / Legal Information Institute
1332:Flamm, Richard E. (Summer 2013).
778:This section has multiple issues.
45:This article has multiple issues.
2670:
2669:
2660:
2659:
2248:Valparaiso University Law Review
1100:
1022:
874:
808:
767:
157:is the legal process by which a
75:
34:
2711:Conflict of interest mitigation
2665:Conflict of interest (category)
2199:U.S. Department of the Interior
1955:Millhiser, Ian (May 29, 2024).
1921:Pilkington, Ed (May 31, 2024).
1851:Barnes, Robert (June 9, 2009).
1817:Liptak, Adam (March 21, 2004).
1473:U.S. Department of the Interior
1014:Responsibility and consequences
786:or discuss these issues on the
620:1993 World Trade Center bombing
504:declining to recuse himself in
332:files a "timely and sufficient
308:Corruption in the United States
53:or discuss these issues on the
1981:Smith, David (June 15, 2024).
1002:or at a lower appellate level.
410:because his son was attending
1:
1647:"Recusal of Judge/Prosecutor"
1441:"To recuse or not to recuse?"
473:participated in deciding the
251:Potential grounds for recusal
2639:Who Killed the Electric Car?
2229:Abramson, Leslie W. (1993).
1655:University of North Carolina
1604:Rule 2.11: Disqualification.
1212:, 75 Wis.2d 411, 436 (1977).
749:Applicable to most countries
715:Attorney General of the U.S.
330:United States District Court
302:Recusal in the United States
1557:Legal Information Institute
900:the claims made and adding
412:Virginia Military Institute
98:, discuss the issue on the
2727:
2309:Flamm, Richard E. (2015).
2044:Smith, Craig Alan (2020).
1528:Office of Justice Programs
752:
601:, explaining why he as an
376:
305:
279:United States Constitution
2655:
2405:Judicial disqualification
1203:Wis. Stat. sec. 757.19(2)
463:Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
407:United States v. Virginia
262:US Department of Interior
218:Judicial disqualification
179:appearance of impropriety
2525:Pharmaceutical marketing
1608:American Bar Association
1338:American Bar Association
1176:. In some jurisdictions
968:The judge is a material
735:House of Representatives
658:Independent adjudication
2572:Nemo iudex in causa sua
2054:Oregon State University
2022:The Wall Street Journal
1191:Nemo iudex in causa sua
1092:Waiver and substitution
699:administrative agencies
639:Disclosure requirements
597:issued his decision in
342:Liteky v. United States
2456:Arm's length principle
2050:Open Judicial Politics
1783:, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).
1412:"Definition of RECUSE"
1384:"Definition of RECUSE"
590:Jewell Ridge Coal case
577:On Sep 28th 2021, the
2171:State of Rhode Island
1781:United States v. Will
1713:State of Rhode Island
1500:State of Rhode Island
1260:Pepperdine Law Review
652:Peremptory challenges
554:of the constitution.
421:United States Reports
2706:Conflict of interest
2366:Conflict of interest
2290:Hastings Law Journal
1124:improve this section
1046:improve this section
832:improve this section
731:United States Senate
647:Peremptory challenge
545:Pledge of Allegiance
416:William H. Rehnquist
290:would be biased. In
256:Conflict of interest
175:conflict of interest
104:create a new article
96:improve this article
86:may not represent a
2515:Medical ghostwriter
2235:Nebraska Law Review
2173:: Ethics Commission
2095:. November 5, 2014.
2025:. Dow Jones Company
1715:: Ethics Commission
1502:: Ethics Commission
1417:merriam-webster.com
1389:merriam-webster.com
667:Streamlined process
579:Wall Street Journal
502:in-chambers opinion
404:recused himself in
389:Sandra Day O'Connor
373:Supreme Court cases
359:writ of prohibition
275:Due Process clauses
243:countries, such as
2415:Regulatory capture
2138:The New York Times
1895:The New York Times
1823:The New York Times
956:degrees of kinship
885:possibly contains
707:Richard Thornburgh
557:In 2024, Justices
552:Due Process Clause
487:Harlan Fiske Stone
458:Secretary of State
449:Marbury v. Madison
2683:
2682:
2535:Pharmacovigilance
2322:978-1-890080-04-4
1206:Wis. SCR 60.04(4)
1160:
1159:
1152:
1082:
1081:
1074:
948:
947:
940:
930:
929:
922:
887:original research
868:
867:
860:
801:
595:Leon Higginbotham
482:Robert H. Jackson
476:Jewell Ridge Coal
433:J. Michael Luttig
397:Lloyd's of London
367:rule of necessity
285:Bias or prejudice
150:
149:
142:
132:
131:
124:
106:, as appropriate.
68:
16:(Redirected from
2718:
2673:
2672:
2663:
2662:
2646:Taken for a Ride
2540:Political ethics
2488:Follow the money
2359:
2352:
2345:
2336:
2326:
2305:
2284:
2263:
2242:
2211:
2210:
2208:
2206:
2190:
2184:
2183:
2181:
2179:
2162:
2156:
2155:
2149:
2141:
2129:
2123:
2122:
2120:
2118:
2103:
2097:
2096:
2083:
2072:
2071:
2064:
2058:
2057:
2041:
2035:
2034:
2032:
2030:
2012:
2006:
2005:
2003:
2001:
1978:
1972:
1971:
1969:
1967:
1952:
1946:
1945:
1943:
1941:
1918:
1912:
1911:
1909:
1907:
1888:(May 29, 2024).
1882:
1876:
1875:
1873:
1871:
1848:
1842:
1841:
1839:
1837:
1814:
1808:
1802:
1796:
1790:
1784:
1777:
1771:
1770:
1764:
1756:
1755:
1753:
1732:
1726:
1725:
1723:
1721:
1704:
1695:
1694:
1692:
1690:
1673:
1667:
1666:
1664:
1662:
1643:
1637:
1636:
1634:
1632:
1617:
1611:
1601:
1595:
1594:
1592:
1590:
1575:
1569:
1568:
1566:
1564:
1547:
1541:
1540:
1538:
1536:
1519:
1513:
1512:
1510:
1508:
1491:
1485:
1484:
1482:
1480:
1464:
1458:
1457:
1455:
1453:
1436:
1430:
1429:
1427:
1425:
1408:
1402:
1401:
1399:
1397:
1380:
1374:
1373:
1371:
1369:
1352:
1346:
1345:
1329:
1323:
1322:
1320:
1318:
1302:
1293:
1292:
1290:
1288:
1271:
1265:
1264:
1250:
1155:
1148:
1144:
1141:
1135:
1104:
1096:
1077:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1057:
1026:
1018:
943:
936:
925:
918:
914:
911:
905:
902:inline citations
878:
877:
870:
863:
856:
852:
849:
843:
812:
804:
793:
771:
770:
763:
676:Written opinions
634:Proposed reforms
603:African American
583:
489:died, President
452:, Chief Justice
429:Napoleon Beazley
318:magistrate judge
145:
138:
127:
120:
116:
113:
107:
79:
78:
71:
60:
38:
37:
30:
21:
2726:
2725:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2701:Legal procedure
2686:
2685:
2684:
2679:
2651:
2598:
2559:
2466:Business ethics
2439:
2425:Self-regulation
2400:Insider trading
2368:
2363:
2333:
2323:
2308:
2287:
2269:Iowa Law Review
2266:
2254:(543): 543–61.
2245:
2228:
2225:
2220:
2218:Further reading
2215:
2214:
2204:
2202:
2192:
2191:
2187:
2177:
2175:
2164:
2163:
2159:
2142:
2131:
2130:
2126:
2116:
2114:
2113:. December 2020
2105:
2104:
2100:
2085:
2084:
2075:
2066:
2065:
2061:
2043:
2042:
2038:
2028:
2026:
2014:
2013:
2009:
1999:
1997:
1980:
1979:
1975:
1965:
1963:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1939:
1937:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1905:
1903:
1884:
1883:
1879:
1869:
1867:
1857:Washington Post
1850:
1849:
1845:
1835:
1833:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1803:
1799:
1791:
1787:
1778:
1774:
1757:
1751:
1749:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1719:
1717:
1706:
1705:
1698:
1688:
1686:
1675:
1674:
1670:
1660:
1658:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1630:
1628:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1606:July 15, 2020.
1602:
1598:
1588:
1586:
1577:
1576:
1572:
1562:
1560:
1549:
1548:
1544:
1534:
1532:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1506:
1504:
1493:
1492:
1488:
1478:
1476:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1451:
1449:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1423:
1421:
1420:. June 14, 2024
1410:
1409:
1405:
1395:
1393:
1392:. June 14, 2024
1382:
1381:
1377:
1367:
1365:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1316:
1314:
1304:
1303:
1296:
1286:
1284:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1252:
1251:
1224:
1219:
1210:State v. Asfoor
1200:
1186:
1156:
1145:
1139:
1136:
1121:
1105:
1094:
1078:
1067:
1061:
1058:
1043:
1027:
1016:
961:The judge is a
944:
933:
932:
931:
926:
915:
909:
906:
891:
879:
875:
864:
853:
847:
844:
829:
813:
772:
768:
761:
751:
743:
695:
686:
678:
669:
660:
649:
641:
636:
616:Michael Mukasey
581:
575:
541:First Amendment
491:Harry S. Truman
402:Clarence Thomas
381:
375:
310:
304:
287:
258:
253:
227:
211:
146:
135:
134:
133:
128:
117:
111:
108:
93:
80:
76:
39:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2724:
2722:
2714:
2713:
2708:
2703:
2698:
2688:
2687:
2681:
2680:
2678:
2677:
2667:
2656:
2653:
2652:
2650:
2649:
2642:
2635:
2628:
2621:
2614:
2606:
2604:
2600:
2599:
2597:
2596:
2589:
2582:
2575:
2567:
2565:
2561:
2560:
2558:
2557:
2552:
2550:Revolving door
2547:
2545:Political bias
2542:
2537:
2532:
2527:
2522:
2517:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2503:Medical ethics
2500:
2495:
2490:
2485:
2478:
2473:
2468:
2463:
2458:
2453:
2447:
2445:
2441:
2440:
2438:
2437:
2432:
2427:
2422:
2417:
2412:
2407:
2402:
2397:
2392:
2387:
2382:
2376:
2374:
2370:
2369:
2364:
2362:
2361:
2354:
2347:
2339:
2332:
2331:External links
2329:
2328:
2327:
2321:
2306:
2285:
2275:(4): 1213–56.
2264:
2243:
2224:
2221:
2219:
2216:
2213:
2212:
2185:
2157:
2124:
2098:
2073:
2059:
2036:
2007:
1973:
1947:
1913:
1877:
1843:
1809:
1797:
1793:Laird v. Tatum
1785:
1772:
1727:
1696:
1668:
1638:
1612:
1596:
1570:
1542:
1514:
1486:
1459:
1431:
1403:
1375:
1347:
1324:
1311:Dictionary.com
1294:
1266:
1221:
1220:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1207:
1204:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1185:
1182:
1158:
1157:
1108:
1106:
1099:
1093:
1090:
1080:
1079:
1030:
1028:
1021:
1015:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1003:
993:
982:
979:
966:
959:
946:
945:
928:
927:
882:
880:
873:
866:
865:
816:
814:
807:
802:
776:
775:
773:
766:
750:
747:
742:
741:Best practices
739:
694:
691:
685:
682:
677:
674:
668:
665:
659:
656:
648:
645:
640:
637:
635:
632:
574:
571:
520:Vice President
516:Antonin Scalia
507:Laird v. Tatum
495:Fred M. Vinson
393:Stephen Breyer
374:
371:
303:
300:
292:North Carolina
286:
283:
267:Federal Judges
257:
254:
252:
249:
226:
223:
210:
207:
148:
147:
130:
129:
90:of the subject
88:worldwide view
83:
81:
74:
69:
43:
42:
40:
33:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2723:
2712:
2709:
2707:
2704:
2702:
2699:
2697:
2694:
2693:
2691:
2676:
2668:
2666:
2658:
2657:
2654:
2648:
2647:
2643:
2641:
2640:
2636:
2634:
2633:
2629:
2627:
2626:
2622:
2620:
2619:
2615:
2613:
2612:
2608:
2607:
2605:
2601:
2595:
2594:
2590:
2588:
2587:
2583:
2581:
2580:
2576:
2574:
2573:
2569:
2568:
2566:
2562:
2556:
2553:
2551:
2548:
2546:
2543:
2541:
2538:
2536:
2533:
2531:
2528:
2526:
2523:
2521:
2518:
2516:
2513:
2509:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2501:
2499:
2496:
2494:
2491:
2489:
2486:
2484:
2483:
2479:
2477:
2474:
2472:
2469:
2467:
2464:
2462:
2459:
2457:
2454:
2452:
2449:
2448:
2446:
2442:
2436:
2433:
2431:
2430:State capture
2428:
2426:
2423:
2421:
2418:
2416:
2413:
2411:
2408:
2406:
2403:
2401:
2398:
2396:
2393:
2391:
2388:
2386:
2383:
2381:
2378:
2377:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2360:
2355:
2353:
2348:
2346:
2341:
2340:
2337:
2330:
2324:
2318:
2314:
2313:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2244:
2240:
2236:
2232:
2227:
2226:
2223:United States
2222:
2217:
2201:
2200:
2195:
2189:
2186:
2174:
2172:
2167:
2161:
2158:
2153:
2147:
2139:
2135:
2128:
2125:
2112:
2108:
2102:
2099:
2094:
2093:
2088:
2082:
2080:
2078:
2074:
2069:
2063:
2060:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2040:
2037:
2029:September 28,
2024:
2023:
2018:
2011:
2008:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1977:
1974:
1962:
1958:
1951:
1948:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1917:
1914:
1901:
1897:
1896:
1891:
1887:
1886:Raskin, Jamie
1881:
1878:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1847:
1844:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1813:
1810:
1806:
1801:
1798:
1794:
1789:
1786:
1782:
1776:
1773:
1768:
1762:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1739:
1731:
1728:
1716:
1714:
1709:
1703:
1701:
1697:
1684:
1683:
1678:
1672:
1669:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1642:
1639:
1626:
1622:
1616:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1600:
1597:
1584:
1580:
1574:
1571:
1559:
1558:
1552:
1546:
1543:
1530:
1529:
1524:
1518:
1515:
1503:
1501:
1496:
1490:
1487:
1475:
1474:
1469:
1463:
1460:
1448:
1447:
1442:
1435:
1432:
1419:
1418:
1413:
1407:
1404:
1391:
1390:
1385:
1379:
1376:
1364:
1363:
1362:Bloomberg Law
1358:
1351:
1348:
1344:
1339:
1335:
1328:
1325:
1313:
1312:
1307:
1301:
1299:
1295:
1282:
1281:
1276:
1270:
1267:
1262:
1261:
1256:
1249:
1247:
1245:
1243:
1241:
1239:
1237:
1235:
1233:
1231:
1229:
1227:
1223:
1216:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1181:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1164:
1154:
1151:
1143:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1119:
1118:
1114:
1109:This section
1107:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1091:
1089:
1087:
1076:
1073:
1065:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1031:This section
1029:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1013:
1008:
1004:
1001:
997:
994:
991:
987:
983:
980:
977:
976:
971:
967:
964:
960:
957:
953:
952:
951:
942:
939:
924:
921:
913:
910:November 2023
903:
899:
895:
889:
888:
883:This section
881:
872:
871:
862:
859:
851:
848:November 2023
841:
837:
833:
827:
826:
822:
817:This section
815:
811:
806:
805:
800:
798:
791:
790:
785:
784:
779:
774:
765:
764:
760:
756:
748:
746:
740:
738:
736:
732:
727:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:Jeff Sessions
708:
704:
700:
692:
690:
683:
681:
675:
673:
666:
664:
657:
655:
653:
646:
644:
638:
633:
631:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
604:
600:
596:
591:
586:
580:
573:Federal cases
572:
570:
568:
564:
560:
555:
553:
548:
546:
542:
538:
537:
532:
528:
527:environmental
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
503:
498:
496:
492:
488:
483:
478:
477:
472:
467:
465:
464:
459:
455:
454:John Marshall
451:
450:
444:
442:
438:
434:
430:
425:
423:
422:
417:
413:
409:
408:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
380:
372:
370:
368:
362:
360:
356:
352:
351:
345:
343:
337:
335:
331:
326:
323:
319:
315:
309:
301:
299:
297:
293:
284:
282:
280:
276:
270:
268:
263:
255:
250:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
232:
224:
222:
219:
215:
208:
206:
202:
200:
199:United States
195:
193:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
144:
141:
126:
123:
115:
112:November 2010
105:
101:
97:
91:
89:
82:
73:
72:
67:
65:
58:
57:
52:
51:
46:
41:
32:
31:
19:
2696:Legal ethics
2644:
2637:
2632:Side Effects
2630:
2623:
2616:
2609:
2591:
2584:
2577:
2570:
2520:Moral hazard
2493:Legal ethics
2480:
2420:Self-dealing
2395:Funding bias
2380:Chinese wall
2311:
2293:
2289:
2272:
2268:
2251:
2247:
2238:
2234:
2203:. Retrieved
2197:
2188:
2176:. Retrieved
2169:
2160:
2137:
2127:
2115:. Retrieved
2110:
2101:
2090:
2062:
2049:
2039:
2027:. Retrieved
2020:
2010:
1998:. Retrieved
1987:The Guardian
1986:
1976:
1964:. Retrieved
1960:
1950:
1938:. Retrieved
1927:The Guardian
1926:
1916:
1904:. Retrieved
1893:
1880:
1868:. Retrieved
1856:
1846:
1834:. Retrieved
1822:
1812:
1804:
1800:
1792:
1788:
1780:
1775:
1750:, retrieved
1737:
1730:
1718:. Retrieved
1711:
1687:. Retrieved
1680:
1671:
1659:. Retrieved
1650:
1641:
1629:. Retrieved
1624:
1615:
1599:
1587:. Retrieved
1582:
1573:
1561:. Retrieved
1554:
1545:
1533:. Retrieved
1526:
1517:
1505:. Retrieved
1498:
1489:
1477:. Retrieved
1471:
1462:
1450:. Retrieved
1444:
1434:
1422:. Retrieved
1415:
1406:
1394:. Retrieved
1387:
1378:
1366:. Retrieved
1360:
1350:
1341:
1337:
1327:
1315:. Retrieved
1309:
1285:. Retrieved
1278:
1269:
1258:
1209:
1189:
1174:substitution
1167:
1165:
1161:
1146:
1137:
1122:Please help
1110:
1083:
1068:
1059:
1044:Please help
1032:
975:substitution
973:
949:
934:
916:
907:
884:
854:
845:
830:Please help
818:
794:
787:
781:
780:Please help
777:
744:
728:
696:
687:
684:Substitution
679:
670:
661:
650:
642:
598:
587:
578:
576:
556:
549:
534:
505:
499:
474:
468:
461:
447:
445:
441:David Souter
426:
419:
405:
382:
366:
363:
348:
346:
341:
338:
327:
322:impartiality
311:
296:Rhode Island
288:
271:
259:
235:
228:
217:
216:
212:
203:
196:
154:
153:
151:
136:
118:
109:
85:
61:
54:
48:
47:Please help
44:
1000:trial judge
628:Frankfurter
612:Rasmea Odeh
608:Paul Borman
567:January 6th
523:Dick Cheney
512:White House
273:party. The
209:Terminology
192:due process
167:adjudicator
165:, or other
2690:Categories
2625:Inside Job
2618:Big Pharma
2611:Bad Pharma
2476:Corruption
1627:. May 2024
1585:. May 2024
1217:References
1169:sua sponte
894:improve it
783:improve it
753:See also:
493:appointed
471:Hugo Black
377:See also:
350:sua sponte
306:See also:
241:common law
50:improve it
2451:AllTrials
2281:0021-0552
2146:cite news
2107:"recusal"
1995:0261-3077
1935:0261-3077
1865:0190-8286
1831:0362-4331
1178:litigants
1140:June 2024
1111:does not
1062:June 2024
1033:does not
996:Appellate
898:verifying
819:does not
789:talk page
237:Civil law
231:Roman law
183:judiciary
100:talk page
56:talk page
2586:R v Neil
2498:Lobbying
2482:Cui bono
2471:Cochrane
2410:Nepotism
2205:June 16,
2178:June 16,
2117:June 16,
2000:June 15,
1900:Archived
1870:June 10,
1836:June 10,
1761:citation
1752:June 10,
1720:June 16,
1689:June 16,
1661:June 16,
1631:June 16,
1621:"recuse"
1589:June 16,
1579:"recuse"
1563:June 16,
1535:June 16,
1507:June 16,
1479:June 16,
1452:June 16,
1424:June 16,
1396:June 16,
1368:June 16,
1317:June 16,
1306:"Recuse"
1287:June 16,
1184:See also
1086:harmless
986:contract
624:Brandeis
94:You may
2444:Related
2296:: 657.
2241:(1046).
1966:June 6,
1940:June 6,
1906:May 29,
1132:removed
1117:sources
1054:removed
1039:sources
970:witness
892:Please
840:removed
825:sources
531:hunting
383:In the
277:of the
245:England
225:History
155:Recusal
2373:Issues
2319:
2302:594870
2300:
2279:
2260:999427
2258:
2092:Tablet
1993:
1933:
1863:
1829:
1747:869257
1745:
1555:LII /
1531:. 2002
1006:value.
563:Thomas
437:Scalia
355:appeal
334:motion
187:ethics
18:Recuse
2603:Media
2508:cases
2435:Shill
1198:Notes
963:party
723:Trump
582:'
559:Alito
177:, or
163:juror
159:judge
102:, or
2461:Bias
2317:ISBN
2298:SSRN
2277:ISSN
2256:SSRN
2207:2024
2180:2024
2152:link
2119:2024
2031:2021
2002:2024
1991:ISSN
1968:2024
1942:2024
1931:ISSN
1908:2024
1872:2024
1861:ISSN
1838:2024
1827:ISSN
1779:See
1767:link
1754:2024
1743:SSRN
1722:2024
1691:2024
1663:2024
1633:2024
1591:2024
1565:2024
1537:2024
1509:2024
1481:2024
1454:2024
1426:2024
1398:2024
1370:2024
1319:2024
1289:2024
1115:any
1113:cite
1037:any
1035:cite
990:will
823:any
821:cite
757:and
733:and
626:and
561:and
539:, a
171:bias
2564:Law
1961:Vox
1126:by
1048:by
988:or
896:by
834:by
369:".
2692::
2294:56
2292:.
2273:87
2271:.
2252:28
2250:.
2239:72
2237:.
2233:.
2196:.
2168:.
2148:}}
2144:{{
2136:.
2109:.
2089:.
2076:^
2052:.
2048:.
2019:.
1989:.
1985:.
1959:.
1929:.
1925:.
1898:.
1892:.
1859:.
1855:.
1825:.
1821:.
1763:}}
1759:{{
1710:.
1699:^
1679:.
1653:.
1649:.
1623:.
1581:.
1553:.
1525:.
1497:.
1470:.
1443:.
1414:.
1386:.
1359:.
1340:.
1336:.
1308:.
1297:^
1277:.
1257:.
1225:^
978:).
792:.
713:,
361:.
344:.
194:.
173:,
161:,
59:.
2358:e
2351:t
2344:v
2325:.
2304:.
2283:.
2262:.
2209:.
2182:.
2154:)
2140:.
2121:.
2070:.
2056:.
2033:.
2004:.
1970:.
1944:.
1910:.
1874:.
1840:.
1769:)
1724:.
1693:.
1665:.
1635:.
1610:.
1593:.
1567:.
1539:.
1511:.
1483:.
1456:.
1428:.
1400:.
1372:.
1321:.
1291:.
1263:.
1153:)
1147:(
1142:)
1138:(
1134:.
1120:.
1075:)
1069:(
1064:)
1060:(
1056:.
1042:.
965:.
958:.
941:)
935:(
923:)
917:(
912:)
908:(
890:.
861:)
855:(
850:)
846:(
842:.
828:.
799:)
795:(
143:)
137:(
125:)
119:(
114:)
110:(
92:.
66:)
62:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.