Rule of Law

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company

Caperton v. Massey was a case raising the question of whether the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires an elected state judge to recuse himself when a litigant appearing before him has made substantial contributions to the judge’s election campaign.

Case Summary

Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) filed a Supreme Court brief in Caperton v. Massey, a case raising the question of whether the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires an elected state judge to recuse himself when a litigant appearing before him has made substantial contributions to the judge’s election campaign.

CAC’s brief in Caperton explained that our Constitution’s text and history require that in every state, throughout America, we have a fair system of justice. The Court on June 8, 2009 echoed that conclusion, explaining that its ruling was commanded by “the text and purpose of the law and the Constitution.” The decision is a victory for CAC and judicial ethics.

The case before the Supreme Court arose out of massive campaign contributions made by Don Blankenship, chairman, CEO, and president of A.T. Massey Coal Co., in support of now-Justice Brent Benjamin’s campaign for a seat on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Blankenship spent $3 million – more than 60% of the total amount spent in support of Justice Benjamin’s successful candidacy. At the time of Benjamin’s election, Massey was preparing an appeal of a $50 million fraud verdict against the company to Benjamin’s court. After winning a seat on that court, Benjamin refused to recuse himself from Massey’s appeal, instead casting the tie-breaking vote in Massey’s favor.

CAC’s brief, on behalf of clients including Justice at Stake, Appleseed, Common Cause and the American Judicature Society, argued that Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself violates due process and discusses the importance of judicial independence to the framers of the 14th Amendment, who were particularly concerned with securing equal justice for all and ensuring that judges ruled based on the merits of a case rather than on personal bias or financial interest. CAC’s brief also explained how the Court’s Due Process ruling will influence ongoing efforts in the states to reform the process of judicial selection to further define the circumstances triggering campaign-related recusal and avoid threats to judicial integrity and impartiality in the first place.

On March 3 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Caperton v. Massey.

On June 8, 2009, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Caperton.

On November 12, 2009, the West Virginia Supreme Court returned what may possibly be its final decision in the case.

Case Timeline

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.