Biased Judges, Please Step Down
From Of Counsel Vol.4 No.1
Published 01/31/08
“There is no right to a biased judge, nor to a judge with a closed mind. To the contrary, a state has a compelling interest in providing suitably impartial, open minded judges who will rule based on the evidence and governing law, not based on commitments made in advance.” Chief U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle, N.D. of Florida, September 11, 2007
This court got it right. It's too bad that anti-court extremists keep fighting to make the courts an unfair and hostile place for minority litigants. Ever since 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges were not prohibited from publicly disclosing their personal views, extremists have been attempting to push the boundaries of that decision to undermine completely the independence of the judiciary. But the Supreme Court made it clear: While a state cannot require a judge to remain silent, if a judge makes a public commitment to vote a certain way on an issue, that judge can be subject to a recusal motion that will prevent the judge from hearing cases involving that same issue.
Last year, the Florida Family Policy Council, a conservative extremist group, sued the Judicial Qualifications Commission, attempting to invalidate the state’s judicial canon requiring judges to recuse themselves if they have, or appear to have, bias on an issue that has come before them. Lambda Legal filed an amicus brief on behalf of the defendants. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that recusal canons do not quell judges’ ability to speak publicly on their personal opinions, as the FFPC had argued. Rather, if a judge chooses to speak publicly, and as a result appears to have bias on a matter that has come before the court, that judge may have to step down from hearing that particular case. But FFPC has appealed the decision, and Lambda Legal is continuing to support the defendants with another amicus brief.
Why should we care? Put simply, if a judge makes a public comment, for example, that he believes gay and lesbian people belong in a mental institution, as actually happened in Mississippi, that judge should continue to be subject to recusal motions from gay or lesbian litigants who may end up before the court. In dozens of states this year, the public will vote for some of their states’ judges. A judge campaigning on an antigay agenda is dangerous on many levels but we must do what we can to hold fast to the message that “there is no right to a biased judge, nor to a judge with a closed mind.”
