2007—At a hearing on a settlement agreement requiring New York City to establish policies that prohibit racial profiling, federal district judge Shira Scheindlin encourages plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit against the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policies, outlines the basis for such a suit, declares that she would make sure the suit gets assigned to her, and assures the plaintiffs that she would rule in their favor in their effort to obtain documents they sought.

Nearly six years later, after Scheindlin has used similar measures to seize control of nearly all cases challenging the stop-and-frisk policies and has made a series of public statements responding to criticism of her actions, a Second Circuit panel will rule (in Ligon v. City of New York) that she has so badly damaged the appearance of impartiality that she must be removed from any further role in such cases.

2018—Over the dissent of Judge Joan Larsen, a Sixth Circuit panel (in Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.) declines to certify to the Tennessee supreme court the state-law question whether a statutory cap on punitive damages violates the Tennessee constitution. Never mind that the Tennessee supreme court had (as Larsen puts it) “signaled its willingness” to decide the question. The panel proceeds to rule that the cap violates the state constitution.

Barely a year later, the Tennessee supreme court will label the panel ruling “unpersuasive” and will emphasize that the certification mechanism exists “to promote judicial efficiency and comity, and to protect this State’s sovereignty.”