455:, 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."
574:
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.
66:
2660:
2650:
1091:
1013:
799:
865:
758:
25:
354:
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 "
342:(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
1077:. 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.
287:, 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.
328:
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
313:
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
253:
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
202:
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
573:
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
1331:
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
581:
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
388:
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
278:
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
690:. 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
261:
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
353:
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
594:
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
283:, 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
209:
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.
473:
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
193:
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.
174:, 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
1151:
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.
178:
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
468:
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
714:
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.
994:
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
651:
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.
677:
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.
660:
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.
2567:
747:
236:, 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.
190:, 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.
2034:
1592:
203:
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".
407:
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
578:
314:
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.
707:
325:
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.
2005:
2663:
1322:
718:
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
529:
76:
2140:
1807:
669:
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.
2373:
2345:
1755:
1670:
1268:
435:
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
2378:
539:
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
524:
643:
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.
249:
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual's duties and responsibilities are in opposition to their personal or financial interests. For example,
1888:
632:
Disclosure requirements make it easier and more cost-efficient for parties to determine whether their judge may have a financial conflict of interest.
2056:
420:, 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
403:, whose policies were the subject of the case. On occasion, recusal occurs under more unusual circumstances; for example, in two cases, Chief Justice
449:
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
2699:
250:
464:
2581:
1073:
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
743:
723:
691:
555:
305:(the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or
2309:
694:
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
376:, the Justices have historically recused themselves from participating in cases in which they have financial interests. For example, Justice
1345:
533:
2122:
2518:
1511:
518:
groups that Scalia's participation created an appearance of impropriety because Scalia had recently participated in a widely publicized
508:
1434:
2338:
2299:
939:
Laws or court rules provide the recusal of judges. Although the details vary, the following are nearly universal grounds for recusal.
611:, warning that his recusal would "disqualify not only an obscure district judge such as the author of this opinion, but also Justices
373:
367:
302:
1138:
1060:
926:
908:
846:
785:
267:
128:
110:
52:
1911:
875:
595:
requests, that a judge should not be forced to recuse solely because of their membership in a minority group. Jewish federal Judge
446:
2187:
1461:
608:
296:
380:
generally did not participate in cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in these firms, and
Justice
317:
28 U.S.C. Section 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge", provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a
270:, for example, explicitly require judges to recuse themselves from cases where they have a financial interest in the outcome.
1116:
1038:
824:
703:
599:
relied on the Higginbotham opinion in part in his 2014 decision not to recuse himself from the trial of Palestinian-American
306:
2627:
170:. This practice is fundamental to ensuring fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings, preserving the integrity of the
2694:
2653:
2331:
1945:
970:
The judge has previously acted in the case in question as an attorney for a party, or participated in some other capacity.
1243:
2543:
2496:
1643:
451:
318:
254:
choose to recuse themselves voluntarily to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety. This also applies to cases when
1841:
1545:
400:
1101:
1023:
890:
809:
92:
1971:
1516:
698:
recused himself from an investigation due to his connection with a subject involved in the case. On March 2, 2017,
1878:
1120:
1105:
1042:
1027:
886:
828:
813:
2538:
2444:
2393:
2035:"1.7 The Appearance of Justice: A Historical Case Study Evaluating One Supreme Court Justice's Recusal Decisions"
395:
167:
734:
Documenting recusal decisions in writing is sometimes recommended to clarify the scope and ensure transparency.
329:
recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in
2689:
2620:
2513:
2413:
1596:
1112:
1034:
820:
771:
301:
In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of
225:
38:
2154:
1696:
1483:
2075:
2560:
2459:
2042:
2010:
1179:
687:
726:. In such cases, the Senator or Representative may record a vote of "present" rather than "yea" or "nay".
2613:
1665:
1263:
558:
cases where their spouses have taken public stances or been involved in efforts to overturn the election.
377:
2684:
2159:
1701:
1488:
1248:
409:
258:
have close personal or professional relationships with attorneys or other parties involved in the case.
499:, a case challenging the validity of certain arrests, even though Rehnquist had previously served as a
384:
has disqualified himself in some cases involving insurance companies because of his participation in a
2182:
1456:
961:
unless pleading purporting to make the Judge a party is false (determined by presiding judge, but see
2354:
719:
640:
445:
participated in the decision and authored the opinion of the Court even though Marshall's actions as
404:
385:
222:
and early Jewish law, which disqualified judges from serving on cases of family, friends or enemies.
163:
536:, after giving a public speech in which Scalia stated his view that Newdow's claims were meritless.
522:
trip with the Vice President. The same year, however, Scalia recused himself without explanation in
2503:
1405:
1377:
616:
490:
347:
2403:
2134:
1883:
1162:
963:
944:
540:
475:
437:
413:
will record that the named justice "took no part in the consideration or decision of this case".
263:
2057:"COMMONWEALTH OF PA. v. LOCAL U. 542, INT. U. OF OP. ENG. – 388 F.Supp. 155 (1974) – Leagle.com"
577:
A significant dispute over recusal occurred in 1946 when Justice Hugo Black participated in the
1879:"Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases"
2606:
2523:
2305:
2286:
2265:
2244:
2080:
1979:
1919:
1849:
1815:
1749:
1731:
583:
470:
458:
A notable dispute over recusal in U.S. Supreme Court history took place in 1946, when Justice
421:
186:
Recusal laws and guidelines are established in various legal systems worldwide, including the
2290:
2248:
1735:
2634:
2528:
2476:
2256:
Bassett, Debra Lyn (May 2002). "Judicial Disqualification in the Federal Appellate Courts".
1429:
943:
The judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within three
612:
591:
515:
417:
1727:
The Fox Guarding the Henhouse?: Recusal and the Procedural Void in the Court of Last Resort
2454:
2388:
695:
604:
551:
479:
390:
309:", provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
2533:
2491:
2006:"131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest"
1299:
1074:
504:
495:
483:
381:
322:
280:
1972:"How the US supreme court could be a key election issue: 'They've grown too powerful'"
2678:
2418:
1350:
699:
442:
255:
187:
2076:"Should Jewish Judges Recuse Themselves From Cases Involving Palestinian Terrorism?"
1400:
1372:
2508:
2481:
2408:
2383:
2368:
1874:
777:
711:
547:
486:
to succeed Stone rather than promote a sitting Associate Justice to Chief Justice.
429:
310:
284:
88:
44:
1808:"Word for Word/Scalia's Defense; A Case of Blind Justice Among a Bunch of Friends"
1912:"Samuel Alito's refusal to recuse himself in Trump v US is another ethics breach"
1539:
16:
Abstaining from participation in an official action due to a conflict of interest
2235:
Abramson, Leslie W. (1994). "Deciding Recusal Motions: Who Judges the Judges?".
1090:
1012:
988:
798:
600:
596:
511:
500:
180:
155:
2599:
2464:
1540:"28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge"
1157:
978:
459:
338:
229:
2269:
2219:
1983:
1923:
1853:
1819:
2568:
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No 2)
2439:
1946:"Alito says the Supreme Court's fake ethics code allows him to be unethical"
1166:
219:
171:
1294:
1169:
may have the right to substitute a judge, even if no bias is demonstrated.
2095:
1725:
2574:
2486:
2470:
2398:
2004:
James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones and Joe Palazzolo (September 28, 2021).
1635:
1609:
1567:
974:
951:
514:
was a party in his official capacity, despite the contention of several
2323:
1842:"Campaign Contributions Can Lead to Judicial Bias, Supreme Court Rules"
958:
686:
Outside the judicial system, the concept of recusal is also applied in
519:
233:
1332:
broad recusal laws that still exist in many civil law countries today.
503:
lawyer and opined that the arrest program was valid. In 2004, Justice
228:
countries still have significant disqualification privileges, whereas
984:
748:
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet
425:
343:
175:
2220:"Specifying Grounds for Judicial Disqualification in Federal Courts"
2121:
Shear, Eric Lichtblau, Michael D.; Savage, Charlie (March 2, 2017).
893:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
1161:
and a party believes the judge has a bias the party may motion for
2423:
147:
2301:
Judicial disqualification: Recusal and disqualification of judges
1346:"Supreme Court Digs in on Recusal Practices Criticized as Opaque"
432:
and Clarence Thomas. The death sentence was upheld all the same.
2449:
1512:"Recusal: Analysis of Case Law Under 28 U.S.C. ss 455 & 144"
1244:"Due Process and Judicial Disqualification: The Need for Reform"
507:
wrote an opinion declining to recuse himself in a case to which
159:
151:
2327:
1666:"Recommendation: Recusal Rules for Administrative Adjudicators"
1264:"Recommendation: Recusal Rules for Administrative Adjudicators"
1084:
1006:
858:
792:
751:
59:
18:
588:
Comm. of Pa. v. Local 542, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers
2277:
Bassett, Debra Lyn (2005). "Recusal and the Supreme Court".
532:
case challenging inclusion of the words "under God" in the
489:
In 1973, then-Associate Justice Rehnquist wrote a lengthy
158:
steps aside from participating in a case due to potential
710:
due to concerns over his impartiality as a member of the
428:, and had led the confirmation efforts on behalf of both
882:
84:
998:
The judge determines he or she cannot act impartially.
1323:"The History of Judicial Disqualification in America"
346:
or, under extreme circumstances, by a petition for a
1344:
Robinson, Kimberly Strawbridge (November 14, 2023).
706:, recused himself while the department investigated
416:
A notable case was the 2001 death penalty appeal by
2664:
Conflicts of interest on Knowledge (XXG) (category)
2591:
2552:
2432:
2361:
2123:"Jeff Sessions Recuses Himself From Russia Inquiry"
1784:, 408 U.S. 824 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers).
973:The judge prepared any legal instrument (such as a
607:refused to recuse himself in a case concerning the
336:At times justices or judges will recuse themselves
1435:Texas District & County Attorneys Association
368:Supreme Court of the United States § Ethics
2070:
2068:
2066:
1796:, 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (Scalia, J., in chambers).
619:... each having been both a Jew and a Zionist".
603:. Similarly, in 1994, Jewish then-federal-Judge
2374:Conflict of interest in the healthcare industry
1674:. Committee on Adjudication. December 21, 2018
1671:Administrative Conference of the United States
1272:. Committee on Adjudication. December 21, 2018
1269:Administrative Conference of the United States
2339:
981:) whose validity or construction is at issue.
554:have refused calls to recuse themselves from
73:The examples and perspective in this article
8:
2155:"Guide to Recusal and Conflicts of Interest"
2139:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1697:"Guide to Recusal and Conflicts of Interest"
1484:"Guide to Recusal and Conflicts of Interest"
424:. Luttig had previously clerked for Justice
2544:Sponsorship of continuing medical education
1640:North Carolina Prosecutor's Resource Online
1119:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1041:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
827:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
786:Learn how and when to remove these messages
525:Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
53:Learn how and when to remove these messages
2346:
2332:
2324:
2183:"Recusal Best Practices for DOI Employees"
1754:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
1457:"Recusal Best Practices for DOI Employees"
1724:Roberts, Caprice L. (December 12, 2005),
1139:Learn how and when to remove this message
1061:Learn how and when to remove this message
927:Learn how and when to remove this message
909:Learn how and when to remove this message
847:Learn how and when to remove this message
708:Russian interference in the 2016 election
218:Judicial disqualifcation laws existed in
129:Learn how and when to remove this message
111:Learn how and when to remove this message
2379:Conflicts of interest on Knowledge (XXG)
582:recusal matters. In 1974, federal judge
1730:(SSRN Scholarly Paper), Rochester, NY,
1242:Serbulea, Gabriel D. (April 20, 2011).
1211:
682:Administrative agency and other matters
2582:R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy
2132:
1794:Cheney v. United States District Court
1747:
1691:
1689:
1646:School of Government. December 1, 2023
1155:If a judge fails to recuse themselves
744:R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy
692:Solicitor General of the United States
1428:Westerfeld, Andrea (September 2010).
1237:
1235:
7:
2304:. Berkeley: Banks & Jordan Law.
1289:
1287:
1233:
1231:
1229:
1227:
1225:
1223:
1221:
1219:
1217:
1215:
1117:adding citations to reliable sources
1039:adding citations to reliable sources
825:adding citations to reliable sources
2519:Pharmaceutical sales representative
987:judge previously handled case as a
374:Supreme Court of the United States
303:Title 28 of the United States Code
14:
2100:LII / Legal Information Institute
1891:from the original on May 29, 2024
1614:LII / Legal Information Institute
1572:LII / Legal Information Institute
1321:Flamm, Richard E. (Summer 2013).
767:This section has multiple issues.
34:This article has multiple issues.
2659:
2658:
2649:
2648:
2237:Valparaiso University Law Review
1089:
1011:
863:
797:
756:
146:is the legal process by which a
64:
23:
2700:Conflict of interest mitigation
2654:Conflict of interest (category)
2188:U.S. Department of the Interior
1944:Millhiser, Ian (May 29, 2024).
1910:Pilkington, Ed (May 31, 2024).
1840:Barnes, Robert (June 9, 2009).
1806:Liptak, Adam (March 21, 2004).
1462:U.S. Department of the Interior
1003:Responsibility and consequences
775:or discuss these issues on the
609:1993 World Trade Center bombing
493:declining to recuse himself in
321:files a "timely and sufficient
297:Corruption in the United States
42:or discuss these issues on the
1970:Smith, David (June 15, 2024).
991:or at a lower appellate level.
399:because his son was attending
1:
1636:"Recusal of Judge/Prosecutor"
1430:"To recuse or not to recuse?"
462:participated in deciding the
240:Potential grounds for recusal
2628:Who Killed the Electric Car?
2218:Abramson, Leslie W. (1993).
1644:University of North Carolina
1593:Rule 2.11: Disqualification.
1201:, 75 Wis.2d 411, 436 (1977).
738:Applicable to most countries
704:Attorney General of the U.S.
319:United States District Court
291:Recusal in the United States
1546:Legal Information Institute
889:the claims made and adding
401:Virginia Military Institute
87:, discuss the issue on the
2718:
2298:Flamm, Richard E. (2015).
2033:Smith, Craig Alan (2020).
1517:Office of Justice Programs
741:
590:, explaining why he as an
365:
294:
268:United States Constitution
2644:
2394:Judicial disqualification
1192:Wis. Stat. sec. 757.19(2)
452:Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
396:United States v. Virginia
251:US Department of Interior
207:Judicial disqualification
168:appearance of impropriety
2514:Pharmaceutical marketing
1597:American Bar Association
1327:American Bar Association
1165:. In some jurisdictions
957:The judge is a material
724:House of Representatives
647:Independent adjudication
2561:Nemo iudex in causa sua
2043:Oregon State University
2011:The Wall Street Journal
1180:Nemo iudex in causa sua
1081:Waiver and substitution
688:administrative agencies
628:Disclosure requirements
586:issued his decision in
331:Liteky v. United States
2445:Arm's length principle
2039:Open Judicial Politics
1772:, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).
1401:"Definition of RECUSE"
1373:"Definition of RECUSE"
579:Jewell Ridge Coal case
566:On Sep 28th 2021, the
2160:State of Rhode Island
1770:United States v. Will
1702:State of Rhode Island
1489:State of Rhode Island
1249:Pepperdine Law Review
641:Peremptory challenges
543:of the constitution.
410:United States Reports
2695:Conflict of interest
2355:Conflict of interest
2279:Hastings Law Journal
1113:improve this section
1035:improve this section
821:improve this section
720:United States Senate
636:Peremptory challenge
534:Pledge of Allegiance
405:William H. Rehnquist
279:would be biased. In
245:Conflict of interest
164:conflict of interest
93:create a new article
85:improve this article
75:may not represent a
2504:Medical ghostwriter
2224:Nebraska Law Review
2162:: Ethics Commission
2084:. November 5, 2014.
2014:. Dow Jones Company
1704:: Ethics Commission
1491:: Ethics Commission
1406:merriam-webster.com
1378:merriam-webster.com
656:Streamlined process
568:Wall Street Journal
491:in-chambers opinion
393:recused himself in
378:Sandra Day O'Connor
362:Supreme Court cases
348:writ of prohibition
264:Due Process clauses
232:countries, such as
2404:Regulatory capture
2127:The New York Times
1884:The New York Times
1812:The New York Times
945:degrees of kinship
874:possibly contains
696:Richard Thornburgh
546:In 2024, Justices
541:Due Process Clause
476:Harlan Fiske Stone
447:Secretary of State
438:Marbury v. Madison
2672:
2671:
2524:Pharmacovigilance
2311:978-1-890080-04-4
1195:Wis. SCR 60.04(4)
1149:
1148:
1141:
1071:
1070:
1063:
937:
936:
929:
919:
918:
911:
876:original research
857:
856:
849:
790:
584:Leon Higginbotham
471:Robert H. Jackson
465:Jewell Ridge Coal
422:J. Michael Luttig
386:Lloyd's of London
356:rule of necessity
274:Bias or prejudice
139:
138:
131:
121:
120:
113:
95:, as appropriate.
57:
2707:
2662:
2661:
2652:
2651:
2635:Taken for a Ride
2529:Political ethics
2477:Follow the money
2348:
2341:
2334:
2325:
2315:
2294:
2273:
2252:
2231:
2200:
2199:
2197:
2195:
2179:
2173:
2172:
2170:
2168:
2151:
2145:
2144:
2138:
2130:
2118:
2112:
2111:
2109:
2107:
2092:
2086:
2085:
2072:
2061:
2060:
2053:
2047:
2046:
2030:
2024:
2023:
2021:
2019:
2001:
1995:
1994:
1992:
1990:
1967:
1961:
1960:
1958:
1956:
1941:
1935:
1934:
1932:
1930:
1907:
1901:
1900:
1898:
1896:
1877:(May 29, 2024).
1871:
1865:
1864:
1862:
1860:
1837:
1831:
1830:
1828:
1826:
1803:
1797:
1791:
1785:
1779:
1773:
1766:
1760:
1759:
1753:
1745:
1744:
1742:
1721:
1715:
1714:
1712:
1710:
1693:
1684:
1683:
1681:
1679:
1662:
1656:
1655:
1653:
1651:
1632:
1626:
1625:
1623:
1621:
1606:
1600:
1590:
1584:
1583:
1581:
1579:
1564:
1558:
1557:
1555:
1553:
1536:
1530:
1529:
1527:
1525:
1508:
1502:
1501:
1499:
1497:
1480:
1474:
1473:
1471:
1469:
1453:
1447:
1446:
1444:
1442:
1425:
1419:
1418:
1416:
1414:
1397:
1391:
1390:
1388:
1386:
1369:
1363:
1362:
1360:
1358:
1341:
1335:
1334:
1318:
1312:
1311:
1309:
1307:
1291:
1282:
1281:
1279:
1277:
1260:
1254:
1253:
1239:
1144:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1124:
1093:
1085:
1066:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1046:
1015:
1007:
932:
925:
914:
907:
903:
900:
894:
891:inline citations
867:
866:
859:
852:
845:
841:
838:
832:
801:
793:
782:
760:
759:
752:
665:Written opinions
623:Proposed reforms
592:African American
572:
478:died, President
441:, Chief Justice
418:Napoleon Beazley
307:magistrate judge
134:
127:
116:
109:
105:
102:
96:
68:
67:
60:
49:
27:
26:
19:
2717:
2716:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2706:
2705:
2704:
2690:Legal procedure
2675:
2674:
2673:
2668:
2640:
2587:
2548:
2455:Business ethics
2428:
2414:Self-regulation
2389:Insider trading
2357:
2352:
2322:
2312:
2297:
2276:
2258:Iowa Law Review
2255:
2243:(543): 543–61.
2234:
2217:
2214:
2209:
2207:Further reading
2204:
2203:
2193:
2191:
2181:
2180:
2176:
2166:
2164:
2153:
2152:
2148:
2131:
2120:
2119:
2115:
2105:
2103:
2102:. December 2020
2094:
2093:
2089:
2074:
2073:
2064:
2055:
2054:
2050:
2032:
2031:
2027:
2017:
2015:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1988:
1986:
1969:
1968:
1964:
1954:
1952:
1943:
1942:
1938:
1928:
1926:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1894:
1892:
1873:
1872:
1868:
1858:
1856:
1846:Washington Post
1839:
1838:
1834:
1824:
1822:
1805:
1804:
1800:
1792:
1788:
1780:
1776:
1767:
1763:
1746:
1740:
1738:
1723:
1722:
1718:
1708:
1706:
1695:
1694:
1687:
1677:
1675:
1664:
1663:
1659:
1649:
1647:
1634:
1633:
1629:
1619:
1617:
1608:
1607:
1603:
1595:July 15, 2020.
1591:
1587:
1577:
1575:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1551:
1549:
1538:
1537:
1533:
1523:
1521:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1495:
1493:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1467:
1465:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1440:
1438:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1412:
1410:
1409:. June 14, 2024
1399:
1398:
1394:
1384:
1382:
1381:. June 14, 2024
1371:
1370:
1366:
1356:
1354:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1305:
1303:
1293:
1292:
1285:
1275:
1273:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1241:
1240:
1213:
1208:
1199:State v. Asfoor
1189:
1175:
1145:
1134:
1128:
1125:
1110:
1094:
1083:
1067:
1056:
1050:
1047:
1032:
1016:
1005:
950:The judge is a
933:
922:
921:
920:
915:
904:
898:
895:
880:
868:
864:
853:
842:
836:
833:
818:
802:
761:
757:
750:
740:
732:
684:
675:
667:
658:
649:
638:
630:
625:
605:Michael Mukasey
570:
564:
530:First Amendment
480:Harry S. Truman
391:Clarence Thomas
370:
364:
299:
293:
276:
247:
242:
216:
200:
135:
124:
123:
122:
117:
106:
100:
97:
82:
69:
65:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2715:
2714:
2711:
2703:
2702:
2697:
2692:
2687:
2677:
2676:
2670:
2669:
2667:
2666:
2656:
2645:
2642:
2641:
2639:
2638:
2631:
2624:
2617:
2610:
2603:
2595:
2593:
2589:
2588:
2586:
2585:
2578:
2571:
2564:
2556:
2554:
2550:
2549:
2547:
2546:
2541:
2539:Revolving door
2536:
2534:Political bias
2531:
2526:
2521:
2516:
2511:
2506:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2492:Medical ethics
2489:
2484:
2479:
2474:
2467:
2462:
2457:
2452:
2447:
2442:
2436:
2434:
2430:
2429:
2427:
2426:
2421:
2416:
2411:
2406:
2401:
2396:
2391:
2386:
2381:
2376:
2371:
2365:
2363:
2359:
2358:
2353:
2351:
2350:
2343:
2336:
2328:
2321:
2320:External links
2318:
2317:
2316:
2310:
2295:
2274:
2264:(4): 1213–56.
2253:
2232:
2213:
2210:
2208:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2174:
2146:
2113:
2087:
2062:
2048:
2025:
1996:
1962:
1936:
1902:
1866:
1832:
1798:
1786:
1782:Laird v. Tatum
1774:
1761:
1716:
1685:
1657:
1627:
1601:
1585:
1559:
1531:
1503:
1475:
1448:
1420:
1392:
1364:
1336:
1313:
1300:Dictionary.com
1283:
1255:
1210:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1196:
1193:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1174:
1171:
1147:
1146:
1097:
1095:
1088:
1082:
1079:
1069:
1068:
1019:
1017:
1010:
1004:
1001:
1000:
999:
996:
992:
982:
971:
968:
955:
948:
935:
934:
917:
916:
871:
869:
862:
855:
854:
805:
803:
796:
791:
765:
764:
762:
755:
739:
736:
731:
730:Best practices
728:
683:
680:
674:
671:
666:
663:
657:
654:
648:
645:
637:
634:
629:
626:
624:
621:
563:
560:
509:Vice President
505:Antonin Scalia
496:Laird v. Tatum
484:Fred M. Vinson
382:Stephen Breyer
363:
360:
292:
289:
281:North Carolina
275:
272:
256:Federal Judges
246:
243:
241:
238:
215:
212:
199:
196:
137:
136:
119:
118:
79:of the subject
77:worldwide view
72:
70:
63:
58:
32:
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2713:
2712:
2701:
2698:
2696:
2693:
2691:
2688:
2686:
2683:
2682:
2680:
2665:
2657:
2655:
2647:
2646:
2643:
2637:
2636:
2632:
2630:
2629:
2625:
2623:
2622:
2618:
2616:
2615:
2611:
2609:
2608:
2604:
2602:
2601:
2597:
2596:
2594:
2590:
2584:
2583:
2579:
2577:
2576:
2572:
2570:
2569:
2565:
2563:
2562:
2558:
2557:
2555:
2551:
2545:
2542:
2540:
2537:
2535:
2532:
2530:
2527:
2525:
2522:
2520:
2517:
2515:
2512:
2510:
2507:
2505:
2502:
2498:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2490:
2488:
2485:
2483:
2480:
2478:
2475:
2473:
2472:
2468:
2466:
2463:
2461:
2458:
2456:
2453:
2451:
2448:
2446:
2443:
2441:
2438:
2437:
2435:
2431:
2425:
2422:
2420:
2419:State capture
2417:
2415:
2412:
2410:
2407:
2405:
2402:
2400:
2397:
2395:
2392:
2390:
2387:
2385:
2382:
2380:
2377:
2375:
2372:
2370:
2367:
2366:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2349:
2344:
2342:
2337:
2335:
2330:
2329:
2326:
2319:
2313:
2307:
2303:
2302:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2216:
2215:
2212:United States
2211:
2206:
2190:
2189:
2184:
2178:
2175:
2163:
2161:
2156:
2150:
2147:
2142:
2136:
2128:
2124:
2117:
2114:
2101:
2097:
2091:
2088:
2083:
2082:
2077:
2071:
2069:
2067:
2063:
2058:
2052:
2049:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2029:
2026:
2018:September 28,
2013:
2012:
2007:
2000:
1997:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1966:
1963:
1951:
1947:
1940:
1937:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1906:
1903:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1880:
1876:
1875:Raskin, Jamie
1870:
1867:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1836:
1833:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1802:
1799:
1795:
1790:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1775:
1771:
1765:
1762:
1757:
1751:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1720:
1717:
1705:
1703:
1698:
1692:
1690:
1686:
1673:
1672:
1667:
1661:
1658:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1631:
1628:
1615:
1611:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1589:
1586:
1573:
1569:
1563:
1560:
1548:
1547:
1541:
1535:
1532:
1519:
1518:
1513:
1507:
1504:
1492:
1490:
1485:
1479:
1476:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1452:
1449:
1437:
1436:
1431:
1424:
1421:
1408:
1407:
1402:
1396:
1393:
1380:
1379:
1374:
1368:
1365:
1353:
1352:
1351:Bloomberg Law
1347:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1324:
1317:
1314:
1302:
1301:
1296:
1290:
1288:
1284:
1271:
1270:
1265:
1259:
1256:
1251:
1250:
1245:
1238:
1236:
1234:
1232:
1230:
1228:
1226:
1224:
1222:
1220:
1218:
1216:
1212:
1205:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1170:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1153:
1143:
1140:
1132:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1098:This section
1096:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1080:
1078:
1076:
1065:
1062:
1054:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1020:This section
1018:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1002:
997:
993:
990:
986:
983:
980:
976:
972:
969:
966:
965:
960:
956:
953:
949:
946:
942:
941:
940:
931:
928:
913:
910:
902:
899:November 2023
892:
888:
884:
878:
877:
872:This section
870:
861:
860:
851:
848:
840:
837:November 2023
830:
826:
822:
816:
815:
811:
806:This section
804:
800:
795:
794:
789:
787:
780:
779:
774:
773:
768:
763:
754:
753:
749:
745:
737:
735:
729:
727:
725:
721:
716:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:Jeff Sessions
697:
693:
689:
681:
679:
672:
670:
664:
662:
655:
653:
646:
644:
642:
635:
633:
627:
622:
620:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
593:
589:
585:
580:
575:
569:
562:Federal cases
561:
559:
557:
553:
549:
544:
542:
537:
535:
531:
527:
526:
521:
517:
516:environmental
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
497:
492:
487:
485:
481:
477:
472:
467:
466:
461:
456:
454:
453:
448:
444:
443:John Marshall
440:
439:
433:
431:
427:
423:
419:
414:
412:
411:
406:
402:
398:
397:
392:
387:
383:
379:
375:
369:
361:
359:
357:
351:
349:
345:
341:
340:
334:
332:
326:
324:
320:
315:
312:
308:
304:
298:
290:
288:
286:
282:
273:
271:
269:
265:
259:
257:
252:
244:
239:
237:
235:
231:
227:
223:
221:
213:
211:
208:
204:
197:
195:
191:
189:
188:United States
184:
182:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
133:
130:
115:
112:
104:
101:November 2010
94:
90:
86:
80:
78:
71:
62:
61:
56:
54:
47:
46:
41:
40:
35:
30:
21:
20:
2685:Legal ethics
2633:
2626:
2621:Side Effects
2619:
2612:
2605:
2598:
2580:
2573:
2566:
2559:
2509:Moral hazard
2482:Legal ethics
2469:
2409:Self-dealing
2384:Funding bias
2369:Chinese wall
2300:
2282:
2278:
2261:
2257:
2240:
2236:
2227:
2223:
2192:. Retrieved
2186:
2177:
2165:. Retrieved
2158:
2149:
2126:
2116:
2104:. Retrieved
2099:
2090:
2079:
2051:
2038:
2028:
2016:. Retrieved
2009:
1999:
1987:. Retrieved
1976:The Guardian
1975:
1965:
1953:. Retrieved
1949:
1939:
1927:. Retrieved
1916:The Guardian
1915:
1905:
1893:. Retrieved
1882:
1869:
1857:. Retrieved
1845:
1835:
1823:. Retrieved
1811:
1801:
1793:
1789:
1781:
1777:
1769:
1764:
1739:, retrieved
1726:
1719:
1707:. Retrieved
1700:
1676:. Retrieved
1669:
1660:
1648:. Retrieved
1639:
1630:
1618:. Retrieved
1613:
1604:
1588:
1576:. Retrieved
1571:
1562:
1550:. Retrieved
1543:
1534:
1522:. Retrieved
1515:
1506:
1494:. Retrieved
1487:
1478:
1466:. Retrieved
1460:
1451:
1439:. Retrieved
1433:
1423:
1411:. Retrieved
1404:
1395:
1383:. Retrieved
1376:
1367:
1355:. Retrieved
1349:
1339:
1330:
1326:
1316:
1304:. Retrieved
1298:
1274:. Retrieved
1267:
1258:
1247:
1198:
1178:
1163:substitution
1156:
1154:
1150:
1135:
1126:
1111:Please help
1099:
1072:
1057:
1048:
1033:Please help
1021:
964:substitution
962:
938:
923:
905:
896:
873:
843:
834:
819:Please help
807:
783:
776:
770:
769:Please help
766:
733:
717:
685:
676:
673:Substitution
668:
659:
650:
639:
631:
587:
576:
567:
565:
545:
538:
523:
494:
488:
463:
457:
450:
436:
434:
430:David Souter
415:
408:
394:
371:
355:
352:
337:
335:
330:
327:
316:
311:impartiality
300:
285:Rhode Island
277:
260:
248:
224:
217:
206:
205:
201:
192:
185:
143:
142:
140:
125:
107:
98:
74:
50:
43:
37:
36:Please help
33:
989:trial judge
617:Frankfurter
601:Rasmea Odeh
597:Paul Borman
556:January 6th
512:Dick Cheney
501:White House
262:party. The
198:Terminology
181:due process
156:adjudicator
154:, or other
2679:Categories
2614:Inside Job
2607:Big Pharma
2600:Bad Pharma
2465:Corruption
1616:. May 2024
1574:. May 2024
1206:References
1158:sua sponte
883:improve it
772:improve it
742:See also:
482:appointed
460:Hugo Black
366:See also:
339:sua sponte
295:See also:
230:common law
39:improve it
2440:AllTrials
2270:0021-0552
2135:cite news
2096:"recusal"
1984:0261-3077
1924:0261-3077
1854:0190-8286
1820:0362-4331
1167:litigants
1129:June 2024
1100:does not
1051:June 2024
1022:does not
985:Appellate
887:verifying
808:does not
778:talk page
226:Civil law
220:Roman law
172:judiciary
89:talk page
45:talk page
2575:R v Neil
2487:Lobbying
2471:Cui bono
2460:Cochrane
2399:Nepotism
2194:June 16,
2167:June 16,
2106:June 16,
1989:June 15,
1889:Archived
1859:June 10,
1825:June 10,
1750:citation
1741:June 10,
1709:June 16,
1678:June 16,
1650:June 16,
1620:June 16,
1610:"recuse"
1578:June 16,
1568:"recuse"
1552:June 16,
1524:June 16,
1496:June 16,
1468:June 16,
1441:June 16,
1413:June 16,
1385:June 16,
1357:June 16,
1306:June 16,
1295:"Recuse"
1276:June 16,
1173:See also
1075:harmless
975:contract
613:Brandeis
83:You may
2433:Related
2285:: 657.
2230:(1046).
1955:June 6,
1929:June 6,
1895:May 29,
1121:removed
1106:sources
1043:removed
1028:sources
959:witness
881:Please
829:removed
814:sources
520:hunting
372:In the
266:of the
234:England
214:History
144:Recusal
2362:Issues
2308:
2291:594870
2289:
2268:
2249:999427
2247:
2081:Tablet
1982:
1922:
1852:
1818:
1736:869257
1734:
1544:LII /
1520:. 2002
995:value.
552:Thomas
426:Scalia
344:appeal
323:motion
176:ethics
2592:Media
2497:cases
2424:Shill
1187:Notes
952:party
712:Trump
571:'
548:Alito
166:, or
152:juror
148:judge
91:, or
2450:Bias
2306:ISBN
2287:SSRN
2266:ISSN
2245:SSRN
2196:2024
2169:2024
2141:link
2108:2024
2020:2021
1991:2024
1980:ISSN
1957:2024
1931:2024
1920:ISSN
1897:2024
1861:2024
1850:ISSN
1827:2024
1816:ISSN
1768:See
1756:link
1743:2024
1732:SSRN
1711:2024
1680:2024
1652:2024
1622:2024
1580:2024
1554:2024
1526:2024
1498:2024
1470:2024
1443:2024
1415:2024
1387:2024
1359:2024
1308:2024
1278:2024
1104:any
1102:cite
1026:any
1024:cite
979:will
812:any
810:cite
746:and
722:and
615:and
550:and
528:, a
160:bias
2553:Law
1950:Vox
1115:by
1037:by
977:or
885:by
823:by
358:".
2681::
2283:56
2281:.
2262:87
2260:.
2241:28
2239:.
2228:72
2226:.
2222:.
2185:.
2157:.
2137:}}
2133:{{
2125:.
2098:.
2078:.
2065:^
2041:.
2037:.
2008:.
1978:.
1974:.
1948:.
1918:.
1914:.
1887:.
1881:.
1848:.
1844:.
1814:.
1810:.
1752:}}
1748:{{
1699:.
1688:^
1668:.
1642:.
1638:.
1612:.
1570:.
1542:.
1514:.
1486:.
1459:.
1432:.
1403:.
1375:.
1348:.
1329:.
1325:.
1297:.
1286:^
1266:.
1246:.
1214:^
967:).
781:.
702:,
350:.
333:.
183:.
162:,
150:,
48:.
2347:e
2340:t
2333:v
2314:.
2293:.
2272:.
2251:.
2198:.
2171:.
2143:)
2129:.
2110:.
2059:.
2045:.
2022:.
1993:.
1959:.
1933:.
1899:.
1863:.
1829:.
1758:)
1713:.
1682:.
1654:.
1624:.
1599:.
1582:.
1556:.
1528:.
1500:.
1472:.
1445:.
1417:.
1389:.
1361:.
1310:.
1280:.
1252:.
1142:)
1136:(
1131:)
1127:(
1123:.
1109:.
1064:)
1058:(
1053:)
1049:(
1045:.
1031:.
954:.
947:.
930:)
924:(
912:)
906:(
901:)
897:(
879:.
850:)
844:(
839:)
835:(
831:.
817:.
788:)
784:(
132:)
126:(
114:)
108:(
103:)
99:(
81:.
55:)
51:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.