Document: 510 U.S. 540 LITEKY et al.v.UNITED STATES No. 92-6921. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 3, 1993. Decided March 7, 1994. Before and during petitioners' 1991 trial on federal criminal charges, the District Judge denied defense motions that he recuse himself pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 455(a), which requires a judge "disqualify in any proceeding his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The first motion was based rulings statements this same made, allegedly displayed impatience, disregard, animosity toward defense, after petitioner Bourgeois' 1983 bench similar charges. second founded judge's admonishment counsel co-defendants front jury at trial. In affirming convictions, Appeals agreed with matters arising from judicial proceedings are not proper basis for recusal. Held: Required recusal under 455(a) is subject limitation has come known as "extrajudicial source" doctrine. Pp. 543-556. (a) doctrine—see States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 563, 583—applies 455(a). It developed 144, disqualification "personal bias or prejudice." That phrase repeated ground 455(b)(1), addressing appearance partiality, also covers "bias absence word "personal" does preclude doctrine's application, since textual doctrine pejorative connotation words prejudice," indicate predisposition wrongful inappropriate. Similarly, because term "partiality" refers only such favoritism is, some reason, inappropriate, 455(a)'s requirement whenever there exists genuine question concerning application. A contrary finding would cause statute, significant sense, contradict itself, (petitioners acknowledge) 455(b)(1) embodies doctrine, duplicates 455(b)'s protection regard 543-553. (b) However, it better speak existence an factor, than presence source necessarily establish bias, its bias. consequences factor twofold purposes case. First, alone almost never constitute valid partiality motion. See Grinnell, supra, 583. Apart surrounding comments accompanying opinion, they cannot possibly show reliance extrajudicial source; and, absent reliance, require when evidence deep-seated antagonism make fair judgment impossible. Second, opinions formed by facts introduced events occurring current prior grounds unless display degree antagonism. 554-556. (c) Application foregoing principles case demonstrates none petitioners assert required disqualification. They all consist rulings, routine administration efforts, ordinary admonishments (whether legally supportable) witnesses. All occurred course proceedings, neither (1) relied upon knowledge acquired outside nor (2) unequivocal render P. 556. 973 F. 2d 910, affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, filed concurring judgment, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, SOUTER, joined, post, p. 557. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED COURT OF APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Peter Thompson, appointment 509 920, argued briefs petitioners. Thomas G. Hungar With him brief were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney Keeney, Deputy Bryson, Joel M. Gershowitz. JUSTICE SCALIA Court. 1 Section Title Code This presents whether provision 2 * issue here, charged willful destruction property violation 18 1361. indictment alleged had committed acts vandalism, including spilling human blood walls various objects, Fort Benning Military Reservation. moved disqualify immediately earlier trial, involving Bourgeois, before Judge. 3 Catholic priest Maryknoll order, been tried convicted misdemeanors protest action, enclave Benning. Petitioners claimed present "impatience, disregard animosity" codefendants, their beliefs. included following judge: stating outset purpose try provide political forum; observing opening statement (which described protest) ought have directed anticipated evidentiary showing; limiting counsel's cross-examination; questioning witnesses; periodically cautioning confine questions issues material trial; similarly admonishing witnesses keep answers responsive actual issues; Bourgeois closing argument time "making speech" "political forum"; giving what considered excessive sentence. final asserted disqualification— one oral most serious—was interruption instructing cease introduction new facts, restrict discussion already presented. 4 motion, At informed intended focus motivation actions, Government involvement El Salvador. said allow state testify about them well, but long speeches discussions policy. When, argument, began explain circumstances certain Salvador, prosecutor objected, stated He then instructed limit remarks expected show. close prosecution's case, renewed adding Judge's "admonishing [him] jury" regarding statement, unspecified [of] others," particular two pro se codefendants. again denied. offense charged. 5 appealed, claiming violated refusing himself. Eleventh Circuit affirmed agreeing "matters out recusal." 910 (1992). We granted certiorari. 508 939 (1993). II 6 did exist England Blackstone. W. Blackstone, Commentaries *361. Since 1792, statutes compelled district judges themselves interest suit, party. Act May 8, ch. 36, 11,1 Stat. 278. 1821, expanded include relationship connection party improper sit. Mar. 51, 643. Not until 1911, however, enacted requiring district-judge general. form, codified reads follows: 7 "Whenever court makes files timely sufficient affidavit whom matter pending personal prejudice either against favor adverse party, shall proceed no further therein, another assigned hear proceeding. 8 "The reasons belief exists, less ten days beginning heard, good shown failure file within time. may accompanied certificate record made faith." 9 Under 144 predecessor, came generally applied courts appeals more standard formulation clear —to take classic found oft-cited Justice Douglas Court—that "[t]he disqualifying [under 144] must stem source." 583 (1966). say entirely application several reasons. (the ours recite doctrine) clearly meant hand—which sources conducted (as here).1 Yet many, perhaps most, Courts (and resulting attitudes) properly "extrajudicial." See, e. g., Lyons States, 325 370, 376 (CA9), cert. denied, 377 969 (1964); Craven 22 605, 607-608 (CA1 1927). Secondly, often quoted justifying refusal consider Toth Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 1381, 1387-1388 (CA9 1988); Liberty Lobby, Inc. Dow Jones & Co., 838 1287, 1301 (CADC), 488 825 (1988). But expression rather source. well motives. Cf. re International Business Machines 618 923, 928, n. (CA2 1980). And finally, even cases "source" (for example, testimony event produced unsuppressible animosity), supposed applied. Davis Board School Comm'rs Mobile County, 517 1044, 1051 (CA5 1975) (doctrine "pervasive bias" exception), 425 944 (1976); Rice McKenzie, 581 1114, 1118 (CA4 1978) "has always limitations"). 10 Whatever precise contours (a we will revert shortly), contention Most rejected contention, see Barry, 961 260, 263 (CADC 1992); Sammons, 918 592, 599 (CA6 1990); McWhorter Birmingham, 906 674, 678 (CA11 Mitchell, 886 667, 671 1989); Merkt, 794 950, 960 1986), 480 946 (1987); Johnson Trueblood, 629 287, 290-291 (CA3 1980), 450 999 (1981); Sibla, 624 864, 869 Some, it, Chantal, 902 1018, 1023-1024 cf. Coven, 662 162, 168-169 1981) (semble), 456 916 (1982). To understand arguments con necessary appreciate major changes law effected revision 455 1974. 11 1974, nothing then-current version 1821 prohibition presiding who read, quite simply: 12 "Any justice substantial interest, counsel, witness, so related connected attorney improper, sit appeal, other therein." (1970 ed.). 13 1974 massive changes, now "(a) Any justice, judge, magistrate questioned. 14 "(b) circumstances: 15 "(1) Where disputed proceeding; 16 "(2) private practice served lawyer controversy, previously practiced association matter, witness it; 17 "(3) governmental employment capacity participated adviser expressed merits controversy; "(4) knows he, individually fiduciary, spouse minor child residing household, financial controversy proceeding, could substantially affected outcome 19 "(5) spouse, person third them, person: 20 "(i) Is officer, director, trustee party; 21 "(ii) acting "(iii) 23 "(iv) likely proceeding." Almost (paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(5)) merely rendered objective spelled detail "interest" "relationship" covered 455. paragraphs brought into elements general prejudice" addressed 144. Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) duplicated set forth ("bias prejudice"), applicable justices, judges, magistrates just judges), placed obligation identify those himself, response affidavit. 24 Subsection (a), "catchall" provision, covering both "interest relationship" grounds, Liljeberg Health Services Acquisition 486 847 (1988)— evaluated basis, reality appearance. Quite simply universally, "impartiality 25 What effect these doctrine—whether obsolete, continuing relevance seems invocable can invoked anyway— depends was. suggest consisted officially being different prejudice. And, point out, while retains proscribes sort. 26 true number restricting sources, see, 1927); Ferrari 169 353, 355 1948). cited reason excluding restriction 168, (1982); Panzardi-Alvarez 879 975, 983-984, (CA1), 493 1082 (1989). us, mistakes Petitioners' suggestion our error. gave holding citation half century Berger 255 (1921). turn cited, Ex parte American Steel Barrel 230 35 (1913), term. obvious "must antedating trial," S., 34; statute "was enable discontented litigant oust . prevent future action cause," 44. 27 view, (though unexpressed) rationale modern statutory "personal"—for First foremost, explanation semantic success pretends be. Bias seem us divided kind, offensive, official perfectly right. As used, terms, describing dispositions appropriate. common without meaning adjective do anything except emphasize idiosyncratic nature prejudice, certainly implying "nonpersonal," benign category mental states. vein, speaks individual's preference," "nonpersonal preference." interpreting create complete dichotomy between court-acquired extrinsically produces results intolerable absurd. Imagine, lengthy learns obscure religious sect, acquires passionate hatred adherents. "official" recusing origin key understanding flexible scope (or so-called "exceptions" it), unfavorable disposition towards individual case) terms. One say, world biased prejudiced Adolf Hitler. connote favorable somehow undeserved, rests possess juror receipt inadmissible defendant's activities), inflamed admitted activities vote guilty regardless facts). pejorativeness terms "bias" "prejudice" used §§ specific reference work judges. 29 presides may, completion evidence, exceedingly ill disposed defendant, thoroughly reprehensible person. thereby recusable indeed sometimes trial) task. Jerome Frank pithily put it: "Impartiality gullibility. Disinterestedness mean child-like innocence. If form judgments actors court-house dramas called trials, decisions." J. Linahan, 138 650, 654 1943). Also deprecatory characterization held result learned proceedings. regarded normal remand, successive trials defendant. 30 wrong theory, though too far off mark practical suggest, many have, establishing exclusive one, deserve characterized because, springs adduced extreme inability judgment. (That explains exception 1975), (1976).) 31 appears well. negative mere above, persuasive. rely categorical 455's language: Recusal impartiality, arises "plain-language" 455(b)(1): apply derives described, latter invalid demands predispositions go beyond acceptable. think equivalent connotation, consequences, "partiality." Heritage Dictionary 1319 (3d ed. 1992) ("partiality" defined "[f]avorable bias"). prospective insurance-claim stricken partial if votes insurance companies; contract support. "Partiality" refer favoritism, Impartiality Moreover, enough import "reasonableness" (recusal "might questioned") effect. demand sort "child-like innocence" elimination reasonable. 32 Declining find language contained itself. expands 455(b), well—not relationship. Within area overlap, unreasonable interpret (unless it) implicitly eliminating explicitly 455(b). obviously wrong, hold questioned" parties fourth judge. 455(b)(5), addresses specifically, ends disability relationship, should govern contains limitation—and (since text contradicts well.2 33 applying easily obtainable remand appellate direct why follows; does, bad. Federal courts' ability assign alone, power "require circumstances," 2106. permit standard, pragmatic standard. so—but standards irrelevant here. 34 For reasons, applies much fact condition recusal, (albeit rarely) suffice. Nor context view scholarly reading) establishes precludes determinative) jurisprudence. describe detail. following: (i. e., apart opinion), rarest discussed below) involved. invariably, Thus, critical disapproving of, hostile to, parties, cases, ordinarily support challenge. reveal high An example former well) (1921), War I espionage German-American defendants: "One very mind, indeed, [to be] German Americans" "hearts reeking disloyalty." Id., (internal quotation marks omitted). expressions dissatisfaction, annoyance, anger, bounds imperfect men women, having confirmed display. efforts courtroom administration—even stern short-tempered —remain immune. III 36 Applying difficult. None uttered, referred additional manifestations conduct below, witnesses, "anti-defendant tone," cutting relevant defendants' post-trial appeal forma pauperis.3 37 inadequate above: 38 Affirmed. Notes: fromGrinnell excerpted above entire context: participation v.United 22, 31. attitudes [the case] evinced defendants study depositions requested make." Berger, Kennedy asserts proposition, established inLiljeberg (1988), "subsections (b), underlying circumstances, autonomous operation." Post, 566. thing. subsection where not—but something "autonomy," uses means interpreted other. correct "broader reach" 567, provisions inconsistently there. concerned respect (b). deals limitations subjective-knowledge inapplicable. goes important respect: aspects specifically issue, poor construction nullifying provides, extent requires. said, (b)(5), kinship do. aspect "objective appearance" principle subjective (b)(1): subjectively prejudiced, so. eliminates longstanding (b)(1), fails satisfy attributable information hence partiality. complains call "Father," asserting "subtly manifested Father Bourgeois." Brief 30. discussed, intrajudicial behavior subtle SOUTER join, Court's ultimate unexceptionable. Nevertheless, my concurrence announces mistaken, unfortunate precedent respects. accords nearly dispositive weight hearing weakens principal system, 455, holding—contrary recent interpretation (1988)—that broad protections afforded qualified explicit prohibitions took decide reach limited rule. agree insofar recognizes noper rule arise places undue emphasis challenged mindset determining mandated provides "shall purposes, suffice triggered attitude mind resistant dispassionate inquiry public, reviewing reasonable neutral character findings. threshold disqualified she harbors aversion, hostility kind fair-minded aside judging dispute placing distracts central inquiry. objects So sense originate metaphysical inquiry, beside point. consideration Liljeberg, 860, originated how disclosed. If, instance, over retrial state, original cause, intent ensure side prevail, little doubt recuse. Rugenstein Ottenheimer, 78 Ore. 371, 372, 152 215, 216 (1915) (reversing retrial, stated: "`This again, me. that. woman gets verdict stand'"). agree, then, rejection theper Appeals, recusal" 1992). proceeds discern interpretive primary analysis. candid struggle persuasive approach attempts along lines fallen somewhat short mark. This, submit, due crept jurisprudence accident design. source," bearing name, appeared previous cases: 563 Respondents sought like denying respondents' claim, case." Although Grinnell's articulation decision, closer examination, proves erect per barrier. After reciting absolute rule, proceeded few points: in-court "reflected that, alleged, stringent relief for"; "repeatedly up merits"; "manifes[t] closed case," "a terse way" reiterating ruling. Ibid. Had unnecessary. More point, justification announcement relying passage turns bear stands proposition turn, relies advancing narrow 35, 44 (1913) (predecessor reviewable otherwise"). There real difference, course, providing sustain challenge therefore, satisfactory reading surprise, enlist adoption adverts ratify, ante, 549, alternative rationale: litigant's "be heard," "good [is] time." seeking term, goes, litigation. 34-35. 10-day anachronism 1963, Congress abolished formal courts. 138. event, cause. justify analogous requirement. reject yet gained currency home Ante, 548-550. Given flaws advances converse "impartiality" 550, 552-553. rationale, acknowledges, amount much. need disqualifying. Conforte, 869, 878-881 449 1012 (1980). Likewise, disclosed rise level required. Holland, 655 1981); Nicodemus Chrysler 596 152, 155-157, 1979). From this, conclude allegation statutes. 554-555. nonetheless proceeds, explanation, `extrajudicial source' factor" 555 (emphasis original). last step warrants attention. recognize empirical doubts seldom merit slight utility; convenient shorthand confronted recur frequency. litigants (like here) seek participation, capacity, Those allegations meritless instances, prompt proceed. Judges, faithful oath, every each disposition. duty decisions contacts Some argue feel "motivation vindicate conclusion" time, remand. Ratner, Disqualification Judges Prior Judicial Actions, How. L. 228, 229-230 (1957). Still, accept notion "conscientious will, possible, aware biases character, self-knowledge, nullify effect." 652 skill extraneous requisites office. sound administration, moreover, prudent preside causes issues. Rules Governing 2255 Proceedings Courts, Rule 4(a) ("The presented promptly presided movant's sentenced him, or, imposed sentence charge part attacked movant"). public tends reinforce resolve weigh care propriety her decision Out reconciliation comes recognition experience not, give impartiality. B justification, strict dismissing thereof, difficult views instance expect heed oath down, occur. obduracy, honest mistake, simple attain self-knowledge acknowledge circumstance, order noted place origin. part, holds "display impossible."Ante, 555. insufficient serve protect integrity effect, distinguish professes reject. "impossibility judgment" test bears resemblance adopted 455(a): preserves nature, asks 860 ("[t]he goal section avoid partiality") omitted); 1023 1990). contrast, impossible, actual, apparent, defeats exists. events, remains troubling limited, preclusive character. fail unfair likely, possible nonetheless. courts, interests bound demeanor raise devolve When prevailing society's enterprises reasonableness, inappropriate concerns predisposed connections lenient system stake. Disputes arousing deep passions courtroom, appear supporters disappointed outcome. change. can, enforce legitimate expectation maintain, appearance, conviction discipline disputes detachment apparent fixed predisposition, otherwise, follows itself: observer entertain leads detached impartial unlikely, disqualified. Indeed, understands office insist ethics, converge one. Offutt 348 11, (1954) ("[J]ustice justice"); McCarthy, [1924] K. B. 256, 259 (1923) done, manifestly undoubtedly seen done"). fairness neutrality obtain bare possibility Marshall Jerrico, 446 238, 242 (1980) (noting importance "preserv[ing] fairness," "`generat[es] feeling, popular government, done'") (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. McGrath, 341 123, 172 (1951) (Frankfurter, concurring)). determination explained straightforward manner resort factor. written charges secure wisdom rules, interpreted, occasional departure. effort "often dispositive" extra-judicial error way. begins explaining 455(b)(1). "it 455(b)." 553 interpretation, "would itself." 552. interplay Respondent (in university) litigation, albeit unaware. Petitioner opposed disqualification, asked light 455(b)(4), "knows According petitioner, 455(b)(4) indicated 859, 8. Otherwise, contended, meaningless. respondent, emphasized "important differences" subsections concluded 859-860, teaches, says today, inherent 455(b) own force, structure operation. commences circumstances"; Congress' inclusion "also" indicates independent force. 455(e), permits waive confirmation difference. distinction face statute. delineates mandated; instances assumed. ("personal prejudice"); 455(b)(2) (judge "served [a] controversy" practice); 455(b)(3) (same government employment); ("financial interest" litigation); 455(b)(5) "within lawyer, witness). guaranteeing partisan sit, suspicion. 860. Because none, Hall Small Admin., 695 175, 179 1983); Ritter, 459, 464 (CA10), 429 951 (1976), broader distinct assured circumstance respect, scheme understood extending confining large it. 553-554, 2. permitting comprehensive provisions, rules waived. 455(e). suspect attempt demarcate "area overlap" (ante, 553) prove elusive instances. design impose extensive 859-861, undercuts enacting guarantee describes unimpressive contested designed orderly Nothing raises inference concur

Category: 3