Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawJudicial RecusalDue ProcessDue Process Clausejudicial disqualificationrecusalprobability of actual bias

Facts

A West Virginia jury found Massey liable and awarded Caperton $50 million. Before Massey's appeal, Don Blankenship, Massey's chairman, chief executive officer, and president, spent about $3 million to support Brent Benjamin's campaign for a seat on the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, including the statutory maximum contribution, large donations to a supportive political organization, and independent expenditures. Blankenship's spending exceeded the amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and was more than three times the amount spent by Benjamin's own campaign committee. After Benjamin was elected, Caperton repeatedly moved to disqualify him from Massey's appeal, but he denied recusal and joined the 3-2 majority reversing the verdict.

Issue

Whether the Due Process Clause was violated when a justice refused to recuse himself from a case involving a major supporter whose extraordinary campaign spending helped elect him, where that supporter had a personal stake in a pending or imminent appeal before the court.

Rule

The Due Process Clause requires recusal when, under an objective inquiry, the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. In the judicial election context, a serious risk of actual bias exists when a person with a personal stake in a particular pending or imminent case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign; the inquiry looks to the relative size of the support, the total money contributed and spent, the apparent effect on the election, and the temporal relationship between the support, the election, and the case.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, a trucking company loses a $40 million jury verdict in Cincinnati and is expected to appeal to the state's highest court as soon as post-trial motions are resolved. Before that appeal is filed, the company's founder spends $2.8 million supporting a judicial candidate through a maximum direct donation, major funding of an outside political group, and independent advertising; that total exceeds all other support for the candidate and is more than triple the candidate's own campaign spending. After winning a close election, the judge refuses to recuse from the trucking company's appeal.

Is the judge's refusal to recuse most likely a violation of due process?

Explanation. Due process requires recusal when, viewed objectively, the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. In the judicial-election context, that occurs when a person with a personal stake in a pending or imminent case has a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case through campaign support. The extreme size of the support, its apparent electoral effect, and its timing relative to the imminent appeal make recusal constitutionally required even without proof of actual bias or a quid pro quo.