Watch CAC’s Elizabeth Wydra Discuss Caperton v. Massey Coal on Fox

Yesterday afternoon, Constitutional Accountability Center’s (CAC) Chief Counsel, Elizabeth Wydra, appeared on Fox News to discuss Caperton v. Massey Coal, a case concerning judicial accountability that is set to be argued before the Supreme Court tomorrow. CAC has filed an amicus brief in this case in support of the petitioner, Hugh Caperton, on behalf of Justice at Stake and 27 other public interest advocacy groups. The brief argues that the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment require that Justice Brent Benjamin have recused himself from hearing the appeal of a $50 million verdict, in which the CEO of the appealing company was a major campaign contributor in Benjamin’s election.

As Elizabeth states, contrary to some arguments that a ruling in favor of Caperton would be an intrusion by the federal government into states’ ability to administer their own justice systems, federalism does not mean the principle of due process is optional from one state to the next. Watch it:

(Note, Elizabeth’s response begins around minute 3:30.)
Shannon Bream, Fox News: Let me check in now with Ms.Wydra… Some are going to argue this is a states’ rights issue. Nobody should be telling the states how they run their elections or how they choose a chief justice. What’s your take on that?

Elizabeth, CAC: Shannon, I’d like to bring it back to some first principles for a moment. Our Constitution’s text and history require that every state in America, whether it elects its judges or appoints them, has a fair system of justice that we can all be believe in. And that’s simply not possible if Mr. Blankenship can buy his judge’s way into office.

The facts here are disturbing but clear. Mr. Blankenship spent millions of dollars, 60% of the total amount spent in support of Justice Benjamin’s candidacy, and that certainly creates the appearance – if not the reality – of an unconstitutional ‘pay to play’ justice system.
In related news, Caperton v. Massey Coal was featured heavily in this morning’s papers, including in the Washington Post, which discussed CAC’s brief filed on behalf of Justice at Stake and 27 other advocacy organizations.

Oral argument in this case is scheduled for 10am, tomorrow morning.

More from

Voting Rights and Democracy
December 9, 2025

CAC Release: Major Campaign Finance Case Tests Court’s Willingness to Respect Congress’s Policy Judgments Aimed at Curbing Harmful Corruption

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in National Republican...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, David H. Gans
Rule of Law
December 8, 2025

CAC Release: Conservative Justices Neglect History at Oral Argument in Monumental Case about Independent Agencies

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Trump v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Michelle Berger
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Pung v. Isabella County

In Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated when a local government seizes real property to satisfy a tax debt and then...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2025

Supreme Court Lets Stand a Two-Tiered System of Justice That Deprives Military Families of the Same Rights Afforded to Civilians

The Rutherford Institute
WASHINGTON, DC — In a ruling that leaves thousands of military servicemembers and their families...
Rule of Law
December 9, 2025

Raises Serious Legal Questions: Wydra on Boat Strike

Bloomberg
Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra weighs in on the second strike by the United...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Al Otro Lado v. Trump

In Al Otro Lado v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is considering whether the Trump Administration can prohibit certain people from seeking asylum at ports of entry.