Justice For Sale? Supreme Court To Decide West Virginia Judicial Campaign Contribution Case

The United States Supreme Court indicated Friday that it will decide a case that comes close to the very fundamental question of whether justice and a court can be bought.  The case, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., according to the petition for writ of certiorari filed the losing party in the West Virginia Supreme Court, presents the following question:

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

The petition leans primarily on an "appearance of bias" argument, stopping short of accusing or alleging actual bias.  It recites prior pronouncements by the Court that "to perform its high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice."  Basic components of fairness are implicated:  (1) a "fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process" and, (2) a "neutral and detached judge" is an essential component of this due process requirement." 

It does not appear that the Court will be asked to prohibit categorically campaign contributions by individuals in judicial elections, while noting that between 1999 and 2006 candidates seeking seats on state supreme courts raised more than $157 million.  The Court is urged to "clarify the circumstances in which due process requires the recusal of a judge who benefited from the campaign expenditures of a party or an attorney."  And so the Court is asked to draw the line at which point it may appear that justice has been bought. 

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com