Court Opinion

ID: 9693120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:23:12.799593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:02:55.967465
License: Public Domain

ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.
¶ 259. (concurring). I join the opinion of Justice Patience Drake Roggensack and write separately to emphasize that the due process standard for judicial recusal as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. _, 129 S. Ct. 2252 *491(2009), is not implicated by Allen's motion. By arguing for Caperton's application, the writings of Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Crooks are "painting a mule to resemble a zebra, and then going zebra hunting. But paint does not change the mule into a zebra." State ex rel. Arnold v. County Court of Rock County, 51 Wis. 2d 434, 448, 187 N.W.2d 354 (1971) (Hansen, J., dissenting).
¶ 260. Moreover, in Caperton, the Supreme Court did not hold that a majority of the court has the power to disqualify a judicial peer, the question we are presented with in this case. Rather, the Supreme Court reviewed a state court justice's denial of a recusal motion, holding that in that "rare instance," Caperton, 129 S. Ct. at 2267, the justice's recusal was required because there was an objective risk of actual bias that rose to an unconstitutional level, id. at 2265. The writings of Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Crooks expand Caperton to an extent that it could include an attack on virtually any justice for nearly any reason and allow litigants to "pick their court" by filing recusal motions against certain justices and not others. Such an expansion of Caperton could cause gridlock in the court and delay justice being dispensed. The Supreme Court made clear that it did not intend such consequences. Unlike the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and no higher court can further review a U.S. Supreme Court Justice's recusal decision. Had the Supreme Court intended that justices now be endowed with the authority to second guess a judicial peer's recusal decision post-Caperton, it would have led the charge by changing its own operating procedures or otherwise providing for review of a judicial peer.1 To my knowledge, it has not.
*492¶ 261. Simply stated, unlike the motion for disqualification in Caperton, the motion to disqualify Justice Gableman is appropriately resolved without resort to the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Caperton involved extreme and extraordinary facts which the Supreme Court recognized in its majority opinion no less than a dozen times. Not only are the pending recusal motions in Allen devoid of facts which rise to the level of a Caperton analysis, unlike in Caperton, here there is no "person with a personal stake" in Allen who "had a significant and disproportionate influence" in placing Justice Gableman on the case "by raising funds or directing [his] election campaign when the case was pending or imminent." See id. at 2263-64. Neither Allen nor the State had any influence in placing Justice Gableman on the court, and no amount of briefing can alter that fact. To be clear, I do not join in the view expressed by the writings of Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Crooks that a Caperton analysis is implicated or the view that the justices on this court have the power to disqualify a fellow justice from participation.2 Nevertheless, even if those writings as*493sume that such an analysis should be undertaken, Allen's allegations fail to implicate Caperton. Accordingly, this court should deny Allen's motion and roll up the welcome mat to those who wish to "judge shop" in Wisconsin.
¶ 262. This court should not promote the use of Caperton to "judge shop." "Judge shopping" has always been taboo.3 In Caperton, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that basic tenet when it concluded that a litigant's efforts to "choose[] the judge," id. at 2265, through directing a justice's election campaign and thus placing that justice on that contributing party's pending case did not pass constitutional muster. "Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when — without the consent of the parties — a man chooses the judge in his own cause." Id. I agree. In this case, by seeking to remove a justice from sitting on a case even though the allegations fail to state *494a due process claim as set forth in Caperton, Allen's efforts effectively amount to "judge shopping." As an institution, this court should not condone such manipulation regardless of whether it is done to place a justice on a particular case or remove a justice from a particular case. Permitting such "judge shopping" damages this court as an institution, inappropriately politicizes the court, and nullifies the votes of the electorate. Accordingly, I write to clarify at least one reason why the due process standard for judicial recusal as set forth in Caperton is not implicated in this case.
¶ 263. It is true that the Supreme Court stated in Caperton that "there are objective standards that require recusal when 'the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.'" Id. at 2257 (quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)). The "extreme facts"4 in Caperton amounted to one of the "rare instances" in which the *495constitutional standard was implicated. Id. at 2267. In contrast, the allegations in this case, like "most disputes *496over disqualification [can] be resolved without resort to the Constitution." Id.; see also Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Cement Inst., 333 U.S. 683, 702 (1948); Pamela S. Karlan, Electing Judges, Judging Elections, and the Lessons of Caperton, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 80, 97 (2009) ("[T]he divide between the Justices in the Caperton majority and those in the dissent was over the availability of a 'judicially discernible and manageable standard' for distinguishing between the 'extreme' campaign support that requires recusal as a matter of constitutional law and the ordinary operation of an elected judiciary in which judges routinely participate in cases involving individuals who supported (or opposed) their election.").
¶ 264. Far from governing disqualification disputes that do not implicate a litigant's due process rights, Caperton "addresse[d] an extraordinary situation where the Constitution require[d] recusal" because a party directly influenced a judge's election at a time when that party's case was pending, and it was "reasonably foreseeable.. . that the pending case would be before the newly elected justice." 129 S. Ct. at 2264-65. In Caperton, "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." Id. at 2263-64. In such "an exceptional case," the Supreme Court concluded that "based on objective and reasonable perceptions," there was a serious risk of the judge's actual bias in sitting on that particular case between those particular parties. Id. at 2263.
¶ 265. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. was a pending case when the campaign efforts of Don Blankenship, A.T. Massey's chairman, chief executive officer, *497and president, "had a significant and disproportionate influence" in electing Justice Brent Benjamin to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and therefore placing him on A.T. Massey's case. Id. at 2264. Before the appeal was actually filed, the opposing party, Caperton, moved to disqualify Justice Benjamin in that particular case between those particular parties. Id. at 2257. Caperton claimed that based on the conflict caused by Blankenship's involvement with Justice Benjamin's campaign, Justice Benjamin's recusal was required under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Id. Justice Benjamin denied the motion. Id. A.T. Massey filed its petition for appeal, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted review. Id. A majority of the court, joined by Justice Benjamin, ultimately reversed the $50 million jury verdict against A.T. Massey. Id. at 2258.
¶ 266. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether due process was violated when Justice Benjamin denied Caperton's recusal motion. Id. at 2256. The Supreme Court concluded that based "in all the circumstances of [that] case, due process require[d] recusal." Id. at 2257.
¶ 267. The "extreme facts" that amounted to a due process violation, id. at 2265, are as follows. A $50 million jury verdict had been entered in favor of Caper-ton against A.T. Massey before the election for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and it was "reasonably foreseeable ... that the pending case would be before the newly elected justice." Id. at 2264 — 65. Blankenship made a $3 million contribution in support of Benjamin to replace the incumbent justice "at a time when [Blankenship] had a vested stake in the outcome" of a pending case that was to come before the court. Id. at 2265. The $3 million was comprised of the $1,000 *498statutory maximum to Benjamin's campaign committee, $2.5 million to the "And For The Sake Of The Kids" organization that supported Benjamin, and over $500,000 on mailings and advertisements to support Benjamin.5 Id. at 2257. The $3 million "eclipsed the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and exceeded by 300% the amount spent by Benjamin's campaign committee." Id. at 2264. According to Caper-ton, Blankenship spent $1 million more than the total amount spent by the campaign committees of Benjamin and the incumbent justice combined. Id. The election was decided by fewer than 50,000 votes. Id. Benjamin won the election with 53.3 percent of the votes. Id. at 2257.
¶ 268. Based on the relative size of Blankenship's contribution in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign; the total amount spent in the election; the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election; and the temporal relationship between the contribution, the election, and the pendency of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that there was a serious, objective risk of Justice Benjamin's actual bias in sitting on that particular case between Caperton and A.T. Massey. Id. at 2263-64.
*499¶ 269. However, nowhere in the Caperton decision does the Supreme Court state that any lesser fact situation would have required Justice Benjamin's recusal in that case, and nowhere does the Supreme Court conclude that he would be required to recuse himself from an unrelated civil case that involved different parties. To suggest that Caperton says otherwise is to invent new law and to invite recusal motions based upon "spin" instead of whether a justice can be fair and impartial. Such practice is destructive to the credibility of the court, as justices are always presumed to be fair and impartial.6 To be clear, nowhere in Caperton does the majority state that anything less than this "perfect storm," created by those extreme and extraordinary facts coupled with the timing of the election and the parties' pending case, would be sufficient to constitute a due process violation. See id. at 2264, 2265 (recognizing as "critical" the "temporal relationship between the campaign contributions, the justice's election, and the pendency of the case" and likewise stating that objective standards required recusal when Blankenship's "significant and disproportionate influence" was "coupled with the temporal relationship between the election and the pending case"). In fact, the Supreme Court cautioned that "[application of the constitutional standard implicated in [Caperton] will [] be confined to rare instances." Id. at 2267.
*500¶ 270. Although referenced in Chief Justice Abrahamson's writing, see ¶ 104 n.72, any mention of television advertisements in support of Justice Benjamin is notably absent from the Supreme Court's decision in Caperton. While the Chief Justice references the content of the television advertisements as if it was part of the Caperton decision, in actuality, that was not even mentioned.
¶ 271. In contrast to the "extreme facts" in Caperton where the probability of actual bias of a justice of a lower court rose to an unconstitutional level, 129 S. Ct. at 2265, the allegations in Allen involve a judicial peer and fail to state a due process claim because no "person with a personal stake" in Allen "had a significant and disproportionate influence" in placing Justice Gableman on the case "by raising funds or directing [his] election campaign when the case was pending or imminent." See id. at 2263-64. Neither Allen nor the State had any influence in placing Justice Gableman on the court, and no amount of briefing can alter that fact. Allen's allegation that Justice Gableman's campaign speech evidences his bias against all criminal defendants and therefore requires his recusal in Allen simply does not implicate the due process standard for judicial recusal set forth in Caperton.
¶ 272. For these reasons, I join the opinion of Justice PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK.

 Originally appearing in the Act of December 5, 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-512, 88 Stat. 1609 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. *492§ 455 (2006)), 28 U.S.C. § 455 is entitled "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate" and provides that "(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge] of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." "He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding... ." Id., § 455(b)(1).

 To be certain, I do not agree with the view expressed by the writings of Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Crooks that Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. _, 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009), should apply in this case. See Justice Crooks's writing, ¶ 188 n.3. Rather, I interpret Caperton for the purpose *493of explaining why Caperton is not implicated, i.e. explaining just how different a due process claim under Caperton is from Allen's claim.

 Of course, a litigant may substitute a circuit court judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.20 (2007-08). However, in that scenario, as well as in Caperton, in which recusal was required of a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the judge can be replaced and the case fully heard. See W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 2 ("When any justice is temporarily disqualified or unable to serve, the chief justice may assign a judge of a circuit court or of an intermediate appellate court to serve from time to time in his stead."). In contrast, when a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice is absent from participation in a case, the parties and the citizens of the state are deprived of a full court to decide the issues. The issues we decide have statewide significance and consequently do not affect only the litigants before the court. Hence, justices have a duty to stay on cases and decide the issues if they can. SCR 60.04(l)(a).

 Emphasizing the rarity of a case in which the Constitution requires recusal, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, referenced Caperton's "extreme" or "extraordinary" facts no less than a dozen times:
• Justice Benjamin "received campaign contributions in an extraordinary amount from, and through the efforts of, [Don Blankenship, A.T. Massey Coal Co.'s chairman, chief executive officer, and president]." Caperton, 129 S. Ct. at 2256.
• "Though not a bribe or criminal influence, Justice Benjamin would nevertheless feel a debt of gratitude to Blankenship for his extraordinary efforts to get him elected." Id. at 2262.
• "Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal, but this is an exceptional case." Id. at 2263.
• "[T]he fact remains that Blankenship's extraordinary contributions were made at a time when he had a vested stake in the outcome" of his pending case. Id. at 2265.
*495• "On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level." Id.
• "Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal." Id.
• "The facts now before us are extreme by any measure." Id.
• "It is true that extreme cases often test the bounds of legal principles .... But it is also true that extreme facts are more likely to cross constitutional limits ...." Id.
• "In each [prior recusal] case the Court dealt with extreme facts that created an unconstitutional probability of bias.... The Court was careful to distinguish the extreme facts of the cases before it from those interests that would not rise to a constitutional level." Id. at 2265-66.
• The Court was not flooded with motions after the prior recusal cases, which was "perhaps due in part to the extreme facts those standards sought to address." Id. at 2266.
Several commentators have emphasized the "extraordinary" or "extreme" facts that warranted recusal in Caperton. See, e.g., Terri R. Day, Buying Justice: Caperton v. A.T. Massey: Campaign Dollars, Mandatory Recusal and Due Process, 28 Miss. C. L. Rev. 359, 373-76, 380 (2009) (noting that Justice Kennedy repeatedly emphasized the extreme and rare facts of the case and finding that the Court "articulated a vague standard based on extreme facts”); Pamela S. Karlan, Electing Judges, Judging Elections, and the Lessons of Caperton, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 80, 81, 97 (2009) ("[T]he Court's opinion focused explicitly only on the way that extraordinary fusions of money into a judicial election may threaten judicial impartiality"; "[T]he divide between the Justices in the Caperton majority and those in the dissent was over the availability of a 'judicially discernible and manageable standard' for distinguishing between the 'extreme' campaign support that requires recusal as a matter of constitutional law and the ordinary operation of an elected judiciary in which judges routinely participate in cases involving individuals who supported (or opposed) their election.").

 In its recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, slip op. (U.S. Jan. 21, 2010), the United States Supreme Court recognized the fundamental constitutional right to political speech, id. at 23, and struck down as unconstitutional federal law that prohibits corporations from making independent expenditures for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate, id. at 50. The Supreme Court "conclude[d] that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." Id. at 42.

 There is a "presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators." Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975); see also Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 273 (1941) ("[T]o impute to judges a lack of firmness, wisdom, or honor" is a premise "which we cannot accept."); Milburn v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 53, 62, 183 N.W.2d 70 (1971) (recognizing that there is a presumption that a judge "in fidelity to his oath of office, will try each case on its merits").