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
May 16, 2025

CAC Release: At the D.C. Circuit, Everyone Agrees that the Constitution Does Not Permit the President to Unilaterally Shutter the CFPB

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District...
Rule of Law
May 16, 2025

CAC Release: Skepticism About Trump Administration’s Power Grab at Labor Rights Agencies at D.C. Circuit Argument This Morning

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

J. Doe 4 v. Musk

In J. Doe 4 v. Musk, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is considering whether Elon Musk’s role in DOGE violates the Appointments Clause and the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Rule of Law
May 9, 2025

Dodd-Frank Authors Join Warren, Waters to Challenge CFPB Firings

Bloomberg Law
Top Democrats, Dodd-Frank namesakes cite separation of powers Amicus brief highlights CFPB’s 2008 financial crisis...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought

In National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump

In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally reorganize the federal government are constitutional...