Chief Justice Kelly Comments on US Supreme Court Ruling

A ruling on judicial qualification by the U.S. Supreme Court will play a role as Michigan formulates its own disqualification policy for justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, according to Chief Justice Marilyn KELLY.

In a 5-4 ruling yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court said that a West Virginia justice should have not participated in decisions overturning a $50-million judgment against the company whose chief executive had been the most generous supporter of that justice's election campaign. By so doing, the justice deprived the other litigant of the constitutional right to a fair trial, the majority said.

The Michigan Supreme Court has been struggling on and off for years over its own policy of when justices should be disqualified, or disqualify themselves from hearing certain cases. Controversial trial attorney Geoffrey FIEGER brought a complaint against the Republican-nominated justices on the Supreme Court that they should exclude themselves from hearing a disciplinary action against him because he funded an advertisement against their re-election (See "Fractured Court Flip Flops On Out State Office Closing," 3/5/09).

Kelly called yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court Caperton v Massey decision an "exceptional case because of its facts." She said the ruling sends a message about the justice system's commitment to fair, impartial proceedings. "As the court points out, nothing less than due process is at risk when a litigant can effectively choose the judge who will hear his or her case," Kelly said.

In an opinion written by U.S. Justice Anthony KENNEDY, the court held the "probability of bias" required the West Virginia justice to step aside. Kennedy emphasized that not every campaign contribution would demand recusal, observing that "this is an exceptional case."

Kennedy wrote, "We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias -- based on objective and reasonable perceptions -- when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.

Kelly said that the Caperton majority "is not suggesting that a judge or justice must be disqualified in all cases involving campaign contributors. In this particular case, based on the amount of money involved, the Constitution required the West Virginia justice to recuse himself."

The majority was right not to adopt "a hard-and-fast rule about how large a contribution will require a judge's disqualification," Kelly said. "Instead, the focus is on the contribution's size relative to the total amounts raised and spent, and the apparent impact on the election."

"I think the U.S. Supreme Court makes it clear that the states' codes of judicial conduct are the primary protection against judicial campaign abuses," she said. "We're already working on strengthening disqualification rules for this Court, and Caperton signals that we do need to have appropriate protections in place."

The Michigan Supreme Court is currently taking public comment until Aug. 1 on proposed recusal standards for justices.

(Read the complete US Supreme Court Opinion in Caperton v Massey.)