High Court Rules Judges Who Receive 'Substantial' Campaign Donations Must Step Aside; Will Chaos Follow?

The case before the Supreme Court crystallized the problem with elected judges: A West Virginia appellate judge received $3 million in campaign contributions from the head of a company appealing an adverse $50 million punitive damages award. Ignoring calls for his recusal, the judge ended up casting the deciding vote to toss the punies. In a 5-to-4 ruling, the high court decided the potential for bias in such a case, involving "substantial" campaign contributions, violated due process. But in his dissent, the chief justice warned of a flood of meritless recusal motions.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com