Bench Memos

Misguided Amicus Brief Defending Prop 8 Non-Recusals—Part 1

In the Prop 8 case, an amicus brief filed on behalf of former New York chief justice Judith Kaye, law professor Stephen Gillers, and others undertakes to refute the case that I made in the last quarter of my amicus brief that both Ninth Circuit judge Stephen Reinhardt and trial judge Vaughn Walker improperly failed to recuse themselves. (I don’t yet have an online link to the Kaye/Gillers brief; I’ll add it in when I find it.) The Kaye/Gillers brief commits critical errors and evasions.

Let’s begin with the Kaye/Gillers brief’s defense of Reinhardt’s non-recusal (which I think is the first time that I’ve seen anyone other than Reinhardt defend his non-recusal). As I spelled out, Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston engaged in confidential discussions with plaintiffs’ lawyers in this very case about their decision to file their lawsuit; she authorized the ACLU affiliate that she led to file amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs in the trial proceedings in this very case (briefs that advocated the same narrower theory of Prop 8’s purported invalidity that, surprise!, Reinhardt ultimately adopted); and she publicly celebrated the trial-court ruling in this very case that was to be reviewed by the Ninth Circuit.

Rather than directly confront these undisputed facts, the Kaye/Gillers brief dodges and obscures them (just as Reinhardt himself did). Its purported summary of my position asserts that Ripston “held a non-legal leadership position” with the ACLU affiliate (p. 30), and it also asserts that no one “allege[s] that Ms. Ripston authored or was even consulted on the briefs” (p. 33 (emphasis added)). But, as the ACLU report I quoted made clear, Ripston was “responsible for all phases of the organization’s programs, including litigation.” Her leadership position, in other words, extended to legal matters, “including litigation,” and it was therefore her responsibility to authorize the filing of the amicus briefs—a responsibility that she could not have carried out without “even [being] consulted.”

The Kaye/Gillers brief’s purported summary of my position also states that Ripston “had peripheral, early interaction in what ultimately became this case.” I don’t see what is “peripheral” about consulting with plaintiffs’ lawyers on whether to file the lawsuit. Also, this purported summary of my position completely omits mention of Ripston’s authorization of the amicus briefs that her ACLU brief and of her public celebration of the trial-court ruling. (The Kaye/Gillers brief later acknowledges, even as it struggles to minimize, the former (p. 33), but only makes the most oblique reference to the latter.)

My case for Reinhardt’s disqualification rests squarely on 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which provides that a judge shall disqualify himself from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” In short:

Might a judge’s impartiality reasonably be questioned when that judge takes part in reviewing the decision in a case in which his wife consulted with plaintiffs’ counsel about the very decision to file the lawsuit, in which his wife authorized the ideological organization that she heads—and that has vaunted its “lead role” on the broader ideological cause at issue—to file amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs in the trial proceedings, and in which his wife publicly celebrated the very ruling that her husband is now reviewing?

The question clearly and forcefully answers itself “yes” (and I invite anyone inclined to disagree to consider this hypothetical). Because there is no serious case to the contrary, the Kaye/Gillers brief hastily passes over section 455(a) and instead falsely contends that my case for Reinhardt’s disqualification rests on subparts of section 455(b). But I discussed those subparts only to refute how Reinhardt misused them to narrow the application of section 455(a). The Kaye/Gillers brief simply fails to engage my analysis.

Most Popular

World

Sweden: Trouble in Paradise?

Writing in Politico, Paulina Neuding returns to the topic of Sweden’s crime problem and the unwillingness of the Swedish elite to admit what has been going on: Indeed it is, although, to be fair, those taboos are fraying fairly rapidly. Nevertheless, Sweden remains a country where, whether by law or, even more ... Read More
Economy & Business

A Trump Trade and Economic Doctrine

If the Treasury Department’s recent semiannual report is any guide, the Trump administration still doesn’t quite get it when it comes to trade imbalances. “The US government has all the tools it needs to achieve balanced trade without risking a trade war,” writes Joseph Gagnon for the Peterson Institute ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Comey–Trump Dance

I never thought the Comey book would make much news for the simple reason that it would be outrageous if it did. If Comey knew something relevant and important about the Russia investigation that we didn’t already know, he couldn’t possibly put it in his book. Let’s say he did have something big on the ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Is James Comey Michael Wolff-ing Himself?

Michael Wolff published a runaway bestseller that left his reputation in tatters. James Comey may be doing a version of the same thing. The rap on Wolff was that he made stuff up. That's not the issue with Comey. It's that his shots at Trump -- although mild by Trump standards -- don't accord with his high-minded ... Read More
Culture

Wednesday Links

T'was the 18th of April in seventy-five: The midnight ride of William Dawes and Samuel Prescott (and Paul Revere). The Forgotten Nazi History of “One-Pot Meals.” Dorothy’s Wizard of Oz Ruby Slippers on Sale for a Whopping $6 Million. On April 18, 1906, an earthquake and fire destroyed 80 percent of ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Underappreciated Barbara Bush

Making the click-through worthwhile: realizing how little we appreciated Barbara Bush when she was in the public’s eye; Mike Pompeo meets with Kim Jong Un and the long road to presidential attendance at high-stakes summit meetings; and Democrats propose a vast, expensive new plan to tackle unemployment . . . at ... Read More
White House

McConnell and Russian Election Interference

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell says he won't bring legislation to the floor to protect special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation. The incident has inspired liberals to revive their complaints that McConnell put party before country in the last weeks of the 2016 election. The charge, which I have ... Read More