« Ind. Courts - Madison's Jefferson County Courthouse Fire Ruled Accidental | Main | Courts - Ginsburg temporarily blocks Chrysler deal [Updated] »

Monday, June 08, 2009

Courts - Justice Shepard quoted on Massey Coal ruling

Nathan Koppel of the WSJ Law Blog contacted Indiana's Chief Justice for his comments on the SCOTUS ruling in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal (see ILB entry from earlier today). The resultant entry is headed "Massey Coal Ruling Getting Thumbs Up in Judicial Circles." Some quotes:

In a nutshell, the court ruled Monday Monday that a West Virginia justice shouldn’t have participated in state court decisions overturning a $50 million judgment against Massey Coal, whose chief executive had been a major financial supporter of the justice’s campaign for office. The decision effectively creates a new constitutional recusal standard for judges who take contributions to fund their election campaigns. * * *

Randall Shepard (pictured in the entry), chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, says it was wise of the majority to focus not just on the amount of a particular contribution in determining whether recusal is warranted, but its size relative to the total amount of contributions in a particular campaign. “The problem with adopting bright-line rule is that what may be a small [judicial] contribution in Texas may be a big contribution in smaller states,” Shepard says.

The judge was particularly happy that the majority opinion includes language endorsing the view that there can be limits placed on the sorts of pledges and promises judges can make when running for office. That is important language, he says, because there is litigation ongoing about whether it is constitutional to restrict judges’ campaign pledges. This part of the majority opinion, he says, could also affect the upcoming Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

The Massey ruling, Shepard adds, also sends an important message to the general public. “If you were to walk up and down the street and say to most people, ‘Would it be okay for a defendant who has lost a $50 million judgment to try to buy himself a vote on the Supreme Court, so he doesn’t have to pay the $50 million,’ not many citizens would pause. They would say, ‘Of course that is not fair.’”

See this ILB entry from Jan. 19, particularly near the end where the amicus Brief for the Conference of Chief Justices in Support of Neither Party. is discussed.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 8, 2009 03:43 PM
Posted to Courts in general