Federal Courts and Nominations

Supreme Court scrutinizes judicial recusal

By Matthew T. Mangino

On Feb. 29, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Williams v. Pennsylvania. The Williams case could set new standards for judicial recusals in courtrooms across the country. Convicted murderer Terrance Williams is challenging his death sentence because the district attorney whose office prosecuted his case, Ronald Castille, was chief justice when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned his right to a new sentence hearing.

The issue has become so controversial, a group of former judges wrote a brief on behalf of Williams trying to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court that Castille crossed the line, wrote Tony Mauro of the National Law Journal.

Jeffrey Green, counsel of record on the judge’s brief, said the “distinguished former judges” behind the brief were adamant that “Appellate judges do not operate in silos, and the effect of a biased judge’s participation cannot be reduced to a ‘no harm, no foul’ determination based on vote distribution.” The Williams decision — by the Castille court — was unanimous.

Williams asked Castille to disqualify himself from hearing his appeal. Castille refused, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer before the U.S. Supreme Court argument, “In Pennsylvania, we leave it up to the judge’s personal conscience … I’ve always been confident that I can be fair and impartial.”

The Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges who “served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally and substantially” in a case, to disqualify themselves. According to the National Law Journal, the code also requires disqualification in proceedings in which a judge “served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy” or in which the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Pennsylvania lawyer Lawrence Fox of Drinker Biddle & Reath told the The Legal Intelligencer in another judicial ethics case in Pennsylvania, “I believe avoiding the appearance of impropriety is as important as avoiding impropriety itself … [w]e want the public to have confidence in the decisions of the courts.”

The Philadelphia DA’s office argued that Castille played only a fleeting part in Williams’ prosecution, limited to signing off on the decision to seek the death penalty. “His signature on that (capital case) memo, in January 1986, was his first, last and only contact with this case,” prosecutors said during oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices voiced concern that Castille participated in the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “The judge here actually signed his name to the review of the facts and the decision to seek the death penalty.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Stuart B. Lev, of the Philadelphia Public Defender’s office, “Well, what is the rule, then, that you’re formulating … [r]ecusal is required when, and fill in the blank?” Lev replied, “When the prosecutor has direct personal involvement in a substantial decision in the case, and the issue before the court reflects upon that decision.”

Justice Elena Kagan indicated Castille should have recused himself because he personally signed off on seeking the death penalty. “He made the most important decision that could be made in this case,” Kagan said.

Brianne J. Gorod, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center wrote, “By deciding to judge the conduct of his own office in a case in which he was personally involved, Castille created a judicial conflict so obvious and so extreme that it violated the Due Process Clause’s guarantee of an impartial justice system.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, suggested to the Philadelphia DA’s office, “I mean, if the individual who should have been recused occupied a dominant role in the discussion and was successful in persuading colleagues and all that — and of course, that’s the sort of evidence you certainly can’t have access to.”

A decision is expected this summer from the high court.



This piece reprinted in more than 125 outlets through Gatehouse Media.

More from Federal Courts and Nominations

Federal Courts and Nominations
January 17, 2024

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Sign-On Letter Prioritizing Diverse Judges

Dear Senator, On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the...
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 31, 2023

Liberal justices earn praise for ‘independence’ on Supreme Court, but Thomas truly stands alone, expert says

Fox News
Some democrats compare Justice Clarence Thomas to ‘Uncle Tom’ and house slave in ‘Django Unchained’
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By Brianna Herlihy
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 7, 2023

In Her First Term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Came to Play’

The New York Times
From her first week on the Supreme Court bench in October to the final day...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, by Adam Liptak
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 8, 2023

The Supreme Court’s continuing march to the right

Major legal rulings that dismantled the use of race in college admissions, undermined protections for...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, by Tierney Sneed
Federal Courts and Nominations
June 25, 2023

Federal judge defends Clarence Thomas in new book, rejects ‘pot shots’ at Supreme Court

A federal appeals court judge previously on short lists for the Supreme Court is taking the rare...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Federal Courts and Nominations
May 1, 2023

Supreme Court, done with arguments, turns to decisions

Roll Call
The justices have released opinions at a slow rate this term, and many of the...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By Michael Macagnone