January, 06 2009, 11:32am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
James Sample, Brennan Center for Justice, 212-992-8648
Charles W. Hall, Justice at Stake, 202-588-9454
Jurists, Business Leaders, Reform Groups Join 'Justice for Sale' Case
High Court Urged to Require Judge’s Recusal in Suit Involving Campaign Supporter
WASHINGTON
An unprecedented array of former state Supreme Court justices, business leaders and civic reform groups has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm one of the most basic rights in any system of law: the right to a fair hearing before a neutral arbiter.
The groups filed briefs in Caperton v. Massey, which has emerged as a landmark case over the spiraling role of special-interest spending in judicial elections. The trend has troubled many, including former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and caused some to question whether justice is now "for sale."
Separate briefs supporting the Petitioners were filed by:
- 27 former state Supreme Court chief justices and justices;
- The Committee for Economic Development, Intel Corp., Lockheed Martin Corp., Pepsico, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Transparency International, and others.
- The American Bar Association;
- The Center for Public Accountability and Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School;
- The Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center and Reform Institute
- The American Association for Justice;
- The American Academy of Appellate Lawyers;
- The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
- The Justice at Stake Campaign (in a brief including 27 civic reform groups).
Theodore B. Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States and counsel for the petitioners, argues that the Constitution's due-process requirement requires West Virginia Justice Brent D. Benjamin to recuse himself from a lawsuit involving Don Blankenship, a coal executive who spent $3 million to elect him.
"The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today," Olson said of the case. "A line needs to be drawn somewhere to prevent a judge from hearing cases involving a person who has made massive campaign contributions to benefit the judge."
The Conference of Chief Justices, the national organization that represents the top judges of the 50 states and the U.S. territories, filed a brief as a friend of the Court. That brief does not support either party but "sets forth some of the practical considerations that may be relevant in resolving a constitutional challenge involving campaign support." The brief states: "The Conference takes the position that, under certain circumstances, the Constitution may require the disqualification of a judge in a particular matter because of extraordinarily out-of-line campaign support from a source that has a substantial stake in the proceedings."
The following are excerpts from amicus briefs filed in support of the Petitioners. Full copies of the briefs, as they become available, are being posted at the Brennan Center's Caperton v. Massey resource page (www.brennancenter.org/massey), which has additional background on the case.
Brief from 27 former chief justices and justices:
The 27 former justices, from 19 states, are: Alabama, Chief Justice C.C. Torbert; Arkansas, Justice David Newbern; Georgia, Justice Norman Fletcher; Idaho, Chief Justice Charles McDevitt, Justice Byron Johnson; Louisiana, Justice Harry T. Lemmon; Michigan, Chief Justice Conrad L. Mallett Jr.; Minnesota, Chief Justice A.M. Keith, Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz; Chief Justice Russell Anderson; Missouri, Chief Justice Edward D. Robertson Jr.; Montana, Chief Justice Jean A. Turnage, Justice John Sheehy; Nevada, Chief Justice Robert Rose; North Carolina, Chief Justice James Exum, Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr.; North Dakota, Justice Herbert L. Meschke, Justice Beryl Levine; Ohio, Justice Herbert R. Brown; Oregon, Chief Justice Edwin J. Peterson; Pennsylvania, Chief Justice Emeritus John P. Flaherty; Texas, Justice Raul Gonzalez; Washington: Chief Justice Robert Utter, Chief Justice Vernon Pearson, Chief Justice Richard Guy; West Virginia, Chief Justice Richard Neely; Wisconsin, Justice Louis Butler.
"Substantial financial support of a judicial candidate ... can influence a judge's future decisions, both consciously and unconsciously."
The former justices "uniformly believe that the participation of Justice Benjamin in this case created an appearance of impropriety. All Amici participating in this brief would have recused if they had benefited from the level and proportion of independent expenditures by the CEO of a party to a case pending before the court."
Further information on brief by former justices: Charles Wiggins, 206-780-5033; J. Mark White, 205-323-1888.
Committee for Economic Development/Intel Corp./Lockheed Martin Corp./ Pepsico/Wal-Mart Stores Inc./Transparency International, et al:
"Public confidence in judicial integrity and in the evenhandedness of the judicial system is a critical element of America's stable, prosperous business climate." Justice Benjamin's refusal to recuse himself "created an appearance of bias that would diminish the integrity of the judicial process in the eyes of any reasonable person."
"In the face of ever more expensive and politicized judicial elections," a U.S. Supreme Court decision to require Justice Benjamin's recusal "would signal to businesses and the general public that judicial decisions cannot be bought and sold."
Further information on brief by CED, et al: Mike Petro, Committee for Economic Development, 202-296-5860, ext. 15.
Center for Political Accountability/Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School:
"The escalation of judicial campaign spending traps business leaders into a classic "prisoner's dilemma." For ethical and financial reasons, most corporations would prefer to avoid spending money ... for a seat on a court where it has a matter pending. ... In today's election environment, however, a corporation must consider the likelihood that its opponent in high-stakes litigation may actively support one or more of the judges that will hear its case."
"Mandatory recusal is necessary to stanch this campaign spending arms race and maintain the integrity of the judicial system. The economy and the rule of law cannot thrive without robust safeguards of judicial impartiality."
Further information on CPA/Zicklin brief: Bruce F. Freed, Executive Director, Center for Political Accountability, 301-233-3621
Brennan Center for Justice/Campaign Legal Center/Reform Institute):
"A decision lacking an unequivocal statement that the facts of this case, taken together, fall beneath the floor of due process, will unfortunately - but inevitably - be interpreted as license by future actors in the shoes of Mr. Blankenship and Justice Benjamin. The resulting race to the bottom will severely corrode both the quality and perception of American justice."
Further information on Brennan/Campaign Legal Center/Reform Institute brief: James Sample, Brennan Center, 212-992-8648.
American Bar Association
"The integrity of the judicial process requires that judges avoid both actual bias and the appearance of bias. Few actions jeopardize public trust in the judicial process more than a judge's failure to recuse in a case brought by or against a substantial contributor to the judge's election campaign."
The Supreme Court's "guidance is especially needed today, when increased judicial campaign contributions pose a greater threat than ever to public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary."
American Academy of Appellate Lawyers:
"As long as the states continue to elect judges, contributions to judicial campaigns will remain necessary ... Nevertheless, the magnitude of Mr. Blankenship's contribution to Justice Benjamin's campaign is so great that it is easy to say it crossed the line of impropriety."
American Association for Justice:
"The record in this case makes plain that the exorbitant financial efforts to influence the election of a judge who would inevitably sit on the appeal of the principal's pending litigation required that judge's recusal as a matter of due process."
Counsel: Robert S. Peck, Center for Constitutional Litigation, 202-944-2876
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:
"Ruling for Petitioners here, even on narrow and fact-specific grounds, will send a much-needed signal that judicial electioneering, though generally valid, may in some particular cases cross a constitutional line and require recusal to ensure the actuality and appearance of an unbiased judge."
Justice at Stake Campaign (with 27 co-signers):
"From the English common law through the guarantees of due process in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, a fair and impartial judiciary has been an indispensable feature of democracy."
"Judicial elections have created a crisis of confidence. National surveys from 2001 and 2004 found that over 70% of Americans believe that campaign contributions have at least some influence on judges' decisions in the courtroom."
"The facts of this case are extraordinary ...A ruling by the court that the facts of even this case do not present a constitutionally significant threat to equal justice would significantly ... weaken state reform efforts."
Co-signing the Justice at Stake brief are: American Judicature Society, Appleseed, Common Cause, Constitutional Accountability Center, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, League of Women Voters, National Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Judicial Campaign Conduct, Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, Colorado Judicial Institute, Democracy North Carolina, Fund for Modern Courts, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, Justice for All, League of Women Voters of Michigan, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Fund, Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, Michigan Campaign Finance Network, Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts, NC Center for Voter Education, Ohio Citizen Action, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, Texans for Public Justice, Washington Appellate Lawyers Association, Washington Appleseed, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Chicago Appleseed, and Chicago Council of Lawyers.
Further information on brief by Justice at Stake, et al: Charlie Hall, Justice at Stake, 202-588-9454
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310LATEST NEWS
Warren Says Trump Will 'Try to Ban Abortion Nationwide' If He Regains Power
"Donald Trump is proud that he overturned Roe v. Wade, he's proud he ripped away a fundamental freedom from millions of women," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Mar 18, 2024
Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned Sunday that Donald Trump will aggressively pursue a national abortion ban if elected to another term after the former president and presumptive 2024 GOP nominee boasted about the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade—a move that opened the floodgates for draconian attacks on reproductive rights across the country.
Trump nominated three of the five Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe in 2022, and he stacked lower federal courts with far-right extremists.
In a Fox News interview that aired Sunday, Trump said the justices "did something that from a lot of standpoints is extremely good" and repeated commonplace right-wing lies that Democrats support infanticide—claims that are frequently used to justify further rollbacks of reproductive freedoms. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case brought by right-wing groups that could dramatically weaken access to medication abortion.
The former president said he will be deciding "pretty soon" on a specific abortion policy for his 2024 campaign for the White House. The New York Timesreported last month that Trump has told advisers and allies that he "likes the idea of a 16-week national abortion ban with three exceptions, in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother."
Asked during the Fox News interview whether he thinks a 16-week abortion ban would be "politically acceptable," Trump responded, "We're gonna find out."
Trump's campaign previously dismissed the Times reporting as "fake news."
Trump on if a national 16 week abortion ban would be politically acceptable: "We're gonna find out."
He then lies about Democrats supporting the murder of born babies. pic.twitter.com/B5e41m9ftm
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 17, 2024
Warren (D-Mass.) said in response that "Donald Trump is proud that he overturned Roe v. Wade, he's proud he ripped away a fundamental freedom from millions of women, and if he regains power, he will go even further and try to ban abortion nationwide."
"By overturning Roe, Trump put judges and politicians in the driver's seat of women and their families' most personal healthcare decisions," said Warren. "He opened the door to even more extreme restrictions on our freedoms: criminalizing doctors, passing bans with no exceptions, and restricting access to IVF—and he brags about it."
"Trump said we're going to find out if the country will accept his plans for a national abortion ban, and he's right," the senator added. "He's going to find out this November when the majority of Americans who support reproductive freedom turn out to send President Biden and Vice President Harris back to the White House and remind Donald Trump that we will not go back—not now, not ever."
"As Project 2025 makes clear, opponents will not stop until abortion is banned and out of reach in all 50 states."
Right-wing groups, including the coalition known as Project 2025, have been working for months on a range of proposals that would further curtail reproductive freedoms at the federal level and undercut people's ability to receive basic medical care.
"In emerging plans that involve everything from the EPA to the Federal Trade Commission to the Postal Service, nearly 100 anti-abortion and conservative groups are mapping out ways the next president can use the sprawling federal bureaucracy to curb abortion access," Politicoreported last month. "Many of the policies they advocate are ones Trump implemented in his first term and President Joe Biden rescinded—rules that would have a far greater impact in a post-Roe landscape. Other items on the wish list are new, ranging from efforts to undo state and federal programs promoting access to abortion to a de facto national ban. But all have one thing in common: They don't require congressional approval."
Project 2025, a coalition of dozens of right-wing groups—including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and other anti-abortion organizations—is "drafting executive orders to roll back Biden-era policies that have expanded abortion access, such as making abortions available in some circumstances at VA hospitals," and "collecting resumes from conservative activists interested in becoming political appointees or career civil servants and training them to use overlooked levers of agency power to curb abortion access," according to Politico.
"Donald Trump is to blame for the ongoing abortion access crisis," Planned Parenthood Votes said in a statement earlier this month. "Because of his first-term actions, 21 states—and counting—now ban some or all abortion; and one in three women are blocked from access in their home states. As Project 2025 makes clear, opponents will not stop until abortion is banned and out of reach in all 50 states."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Russia's Putin Secures Another Term
The controversial leader won a record number of votes for a post-Soviet candidate even as opponents organized a protest at noon on the election's third and last day.
Mar 17, 2024
Despite protests on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin won reelection with more votes than any candidate since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Exit poll the Public Opinion Foundation (POF) put the final tally after three days of voting at 87.8%, the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) at 87%, and Russia's Central Election Commission (CEC) at 87.3%. Putin will now serve another six-year term, meaning he will have been at the helm of the Russian state for longer than any leader since Catherine the Great, surpassing Josef Stalin.
The election comes less than a month after the second anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and is likely to lead to more tensions between the Russian and U.S. governments.
"It gives me some hope to see how many people are not happy with the dictatorship, the war, with what's happening in Russia."
"For a U.S. administration that hoped Putin's Ukraine adventure would be wrapped up by now with a decisive setback to Moscow's interests, the election is a reminder that Putin expects that there will be many more rounds in the geopolitical boxing ring," Nikolas Gvosdev, director of the National Security Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told the Russia Matters project.
With most of Putin's prominent opponents either dead, imprisoned, or in exile, the elections results were considered a foregone conclusion by both friends and foes of his administration.
A Putin spokesperson said in 2023 that the election was "not really democracy" but instead "costly bureaucracy," according to CNN. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said the election was "obviously not free nor fair."
However, Russian opponents of Putin did find a way to demonstrate their position with a protest called "Noon Against Putin." The protest was called for by St. Petersburg politician Maxim Reznik, according to The Guardian. Participants were instructed to head to a polling place at noon and cast a paper ballot for one of the candidates running against Putin, or to write-in another candidate or spoil their ballot.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny had endorsed the protest before his death last month in a Russian prison, leading the Independent Novaya Gazeta newspaper to dub it "Navalny's political testament."
The action drew crowds to polling places both in Russian cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg and at Russian embassies around the world.
"This is the first time in my life I have ever seen a queue for elections," one woman waiting in line in Moscow told
CNN. Russian journalists reported that the lines at some stations within the country reached the thousands, according to Reuters.
Navalny's widow, Yulia Navalnaya, who had also endorsed the protest, voted at the embassy in Berlin, while several protesters gathered outside the embassy in London.
"I expected there to be a lot of people, but not this many," London-based participant Maria Dorofeyeva told The Guardian, adding, "It gives me some hope to see how many people are not happy with the dictatorship, the war, with what's happening in Russia. And we want to stop it."
Ruslan Shaveddinov of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation told Reuters:
"We showed ourselves, all of Russia and the whole world that Putin is not Russia (and) that Putin has seized power in Russia."
"Our victory is that we, the people, defeated fear, we defeated solitude—many people saw they were not alone," Shaveddinov said
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Says Netanyahu Spreading 'Flat Out Lies' About UNRWA
The Maryland senator defended the organization on CBS and said there was no evidence that it was a "proxy for Hamas."
Mar 17, 2024
U.S. Senator for Maryland Chris Van Hollen continued his defense of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and its work in Gaza in an appearance on CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
"The claim that Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and others are making that somehow UNRWA is a proxy for Hamas are just flat out lies, that's a flat out lie," he told journalist Margaret Brennan.
The U.S. was one of many Western countries that paused funding for UNRWA after the agency announced in January that it had fired 12 staffers over Israeli allegations that they had been involved in Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel. However, some countries including Canada, Sweden, the European Union, and Australia have since restored funding. A report has also emerged that Israel tortured UNRWA staffers into falsely confessing to involvement in the Hamas attack.
"Netanyahu has wanted to get rid of UNRWA because he had seen them as a means to continue the hopes of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own."
Van Hollen's remarks on Sunday come days after he argued for the restoration of UNRWA funds on the floor of the U.S. Senate and criticized Republican legislators who wanted to permanently end funds for the organization that supports some 6 million Palestinian refugees in countries across the Middle East, including around 2 million in Gaza.
During his speech, he pointed out that the Netanyahu government had not shared the underlying evidence that UNRWA staffers participated in October 7 with either UNRWA itself or the U.S. government. He also urged his colleagues to read a classified Director of National Intelligence report on Netanyahu's claims of UNRWA complicity with Hamas.
On "Face the Nation," Van Hollen said that the person in charge of operations on the ground in UNRWA was a 20-year U.S. Army veteran.
"You can be sure he is not in cahoots with Hamas," the senator told Brennan.
He also repeated claims that Netanyahu has wanted to eliminate UNRWA entirely since at least 2017.
"Netanyahu has wanted to get rid of UNRWA because he had seen them as a means to continue the hopes of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own," Van Hollen said, adding that the right-wing Israeli leader's "primary objective" was preventing the formation of a Palestinian state.
However, the dismantling of UNRWA would be especially catastrophic amid Israel's ongoing bombardment and invasion of Gaza, which has killed more than 31,000 people and put the survivors at risk of famine. No other organization has the infrastructure in place to distribute the necessary aid.
"If you cut off funding for UNRWA in Gaza entirely, it means more people will starve, more people won't get the medial assistance they need, and so it would be a huge mistake," Van Hollen said.
He also said that only 14 of the agency's 13,000-strong staff in Gaza had been accused of participating in the October 7 attack.
"We should investigate it, we should hold all those people accountable, but for goodness' sake, let's not hold 2 million innocent Palestinian civilians who are dying of starvation... accountable for the bad acts of 14 people."
Van Hollen also repeated his call for President Joe Biden to condition the sale of offensive military weapons to Israel on the country obeying international law and allowing aid into Gaza. While Israel sent the U.S. a letter saying it was in compliance with the law, "the day it was signed, clearly the Netanyahu government is not in compliance, because we see that they're continuing to restrict humanitarian assistance," he told Brennan.
Also on "Face the Nation" Sunday, United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) Chief Executive Catherine Russell described the impact that a lack of aid was having on the children of Gaza.
"We know now that children are dying of malnutrition in Gaza," she told Brennan.
Russell said that not enough aid was reaching those who needed it, calling both air drops and sea deliveries "a drop in the bucket."
She also called for greater transparency into what was actually happening in Gaza and the difficulties of delivering aid.
"The world should be able to see what's happening and make their own judgments about what's going on," Russell said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular