Court Opinion

ID: 9693119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:23:12.794925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:02:55.962567
License: Public Domain

DAVID T. PROSSER, J.
¶ 247. {concurring). Several justices have forced the court to address the limits of the court's power to respond to recusal motions.
¶ 248. The options before us are stark: either we approve the proposition that a majority of justices have plenary power to exclude a colleague from participating in pending cases, thereby nullifying election results and potentially changing key decisions of the court, or we conclude that we simply do not have this authority. Although one may posit a limited power that the court could employ in a truly extreme and egregious situation, that power — once recognized — could not be contained. It would grow like a cancer, and gravely damage the institution.
¶ 249. Because the preservation of the court as an institution is more important than any case or any member of the court, I believe we must reject the notion *489that we possess the power to prevent each other from participating in individual cases.
¶ 250. Justices confronted with a truly extreme situation in which a justice ought to withdraw from a case but is unwilling to do so, may resort to personal and collective persuasion. These justices will outnumber a lone colleague who refuses to withdraw. If necessary, they may delay a case, and they may seek the involvement of the Judicial Commission. These steps are clearly preferable to overturning the will of the electorate and cutting off the procedural safeguards built into review by the Judicial Commission by barring a colleague from participating in a case.
¶ 251. If I am mistaken about this court's power to remove a justice from an individual case before it is decided, the United States Supreme Court can tell me so. The Supreme Court certainly did not do that in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. _, 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009).
¶ 252. In Caperton, the Supreme Court reversed a decision and removed a West Virginia justice from a case in a fact situation that was radically different from the facts here. The Supreme Court did not order the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to remove a fellow justice.
¶ 253. The Supreme Court was deeply divided in Caperton, especially about the ramifications of its decision upon lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent that the Court had provided "no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required. This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be." Id. at 2267 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
*490¶ 254. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy came to a different conclusion. He declared that "Massey and its amici predict that various adverse consequences will follow from recognizing a constitutional violation here — ranging from a flood of recusal motions to unnecessary interference with judicial elections. We disagree." Id. at 2265.
¶ 255. At least with respect to Wisconsin, Justice Kennedy has been proven wrong. To date, the Caperton decision has had disastrous consequences for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Allen motion was filed in anticipation of Caperton, but it has been followed by nine additional recusal motions against members of this court. The Wisconsin State Public Defender's office has invited the entire defense bar to file recusal motions against one of the justices in criminal cases. The number and savagery of these motions is unprecedented and amounts to a frontal assault on the court.
¶ 256. The court should have denied Allen's motion quickly, without comment. This would have avoided exposing controversy within the court. Several justices rejected this course, preferring to take the controversy public.
¶ 257. In my view, the failure of the court to reject Allen's motion quickly and decisively has exacerbated our dilemma. The court must do better.
¶ 258. For the reasons stated, I join the opinion of Justice PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK.