October Term 2008 · Docket 08-22
Does a judge's election campaign donor require recusal?
A coal company argues a judge must step aside after a donor helped elect him. The judge argues the Constitution only bans actual bias.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the side that brought the case argued a fair trial requires avoiding probable bias.
the opposing side argued the Constitution does not mandate recusal here.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether the Due Process Clause requires judicial recusal when a campaign donor is a party to the case. The dispute centers on the standard for proving potential bias.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 3, 2009.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
The company wants the judge removed from the case.
The judge wants to keep the case on his docket.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
What each side says
The company argues the probability of bias violates due process.
The judge argues only actual bias requires recusal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia questioned the definition of gratitude in politics.
Chief Justice Roberts asked about trade group donations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-7
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of judicial independence. It determines when campaign finance creates a constitutional conflict. The outcome shapes future judicial elections and campaign contributions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.