Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T23:22:03.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deciding Not to Decide: The Politics of Recusals on the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Robert J. Hume
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When are U.S. Supreme Court justices more likely to recuse themselves from cases? This article proposes a strategic model of recusal behavior, hypothesizing that the justices balance statutory guidelines concerning recusals against other policy and institutional goals. Using data from the Supreme Court Database, I find evidence that recusal behavior is influenced by a combination of statutory, policy, and institutional considerations. Consistent with statutory explanations, which emphasize the elimination of bias or its appearance, justices are more likely to recuse themselves from cases when business interests are before the Court, when they have served for shorter terms, and when they have previously acted as Solicitor General. However, I also find that the justices are less likely to recuse themselves when cases are likely to be close or when the justices' policy goals are likely to be advanced by participating. These findings suggest that while the justices do follow statutory recusal guidelines, they also have other institutional and policy incentives that lead them to participate in cases despite their conflicts of interest.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 621 - 655
Copyright
© 2014 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank the editors of the Law & Society Review and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, as well as colleagues in the political science department at Fordham University for their help developing this paper at a brown bag workshop.

References

References

Ai, Chunrong, & Norton, Edward C. (2003) “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models,” 80 Economics Letters 123–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bam, Dmitry (2011) “Making Appearances Matter: Recusal and the Appearance of Bias,” 2011 Brigham Young Univ. Law Rev. 943–1002.Google Scholar
Barnes, Robert (2011) “A Health Law Warm-Up Fight for High Court,” The Washington Post, 8 November, 1.Google Scholar
Bashman, Howard J. (2005) “On Appeal: An Appellate Advocate's Perspective,” 7 The J. of Appellate Practice and Process 59–74.Google Scholar
Bassett, Debra Lynn (2005) “Recusal and the Supreme Court,” 56 Hastings Law J. 657–98.Google Scholar
Biskupic, Joan (2011) “Calls for Recusal Intensify in Health Care Case; Kagan, Thomas Questioned,” USA Today, 21 November, 6.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan, & Epstein, Lee (2005) “Recusals and the ‘Problem’ of an Equally Divided Supreme Court,” 7 The J. of Appellate Practice and Process 75–99.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan, & Owens, Ryan J. (2009) “Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence,” 71 The J. of Politics 1062–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Johnson, Timothy R., & Wedeking, Justin (2012) Oral Arguments and Coalition Formation on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W., et al. (2007) “Agenda Control, the Median Justice, and the Majority Opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 51 American J. of Political Science 890–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Wright, John R., & Zorn, Christopher J. W. (1999) “Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court,” 15 J. of Law, Economics, & Organization 549–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canon, Bradley C., & Johnson, Charles A. (1999) Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrubba, Cliff, et al. (2012) “Who Controls the Content of Supreme Court Opinions?” 56 American J. of Political Science 400–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom S. (2009) “Measuring Ideological Polarization on the United States Supreme Court,” 62 Political Research Q. 146–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom S., & Lauderdale, Benjamin (2010) “Locating Supreme Court Opinions in Doctrine Space,” 54 American J. of Political Science 871–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., Steigerwalt, Amy, & Ward, Artemus (2013) The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Paul H., Klein, David E., & Lindquist, Stefanie A. (2008) “Measuring Deviations from Expected Voting Patterns on Collegial Courts,” 5 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 819–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, Peter K., & Wohlfarth, Patrick C. (2013) “The Swing Justice,” 75 The J. of Politics 1089–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Knight, Jack (1998) The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Segal, Jeffrey A. (2000) “Measuring Issue Salience,” 44 American J. of Political Science 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2009) “Circuit Effects: How the Norm of Federal Judicial Experience Biases the Supreme Court,” 157 Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 101–46.Google Scholar
Farganis, Dion (2008) “Is the Supreme Court Bulletproof ? Testing the Limits of Legitimacy with a New Experimental Design,” Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual National Conference, Palmer House Hilton Hotel, Chicago, IL, April.Google Scholar
Flamm, Richard E. (2010) “History of and Problems with the Federal Judicial Disqualification Framework,” 58 Drake Law Rev. 751–63.Google Scholar
Frost, Amanda (2005) “Keeping Up Appearances: A Process-Oriented Approach to Judicial Recusal,” 53 Kansas Law Rev. 531–93.Google Scholar
Geyh, Charles Gardner (2010) Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., & Caldeira, Gregory A. (2009) Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., & Caldeira, Gregory A. (2011) “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” 45 Law & Society Rev. 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., & Spence, Lester Kenyatta (2003) “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?” 33 British J. of Political Science 535–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (2004) “An Open Discussion with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” 36 Connecticut Law Rev. 1033–48.Google Scholar
Goodson, Timothy J. (2005) “Duck, Duck, Goose: Hunting for Better Recusal Practices in the United States Supreme Court in Light of Cheney V. United States District Court,” 84 North Carolina Law Rev. 181–220.Google Scholar
Hasen, Richard L. (2013) “End of the Dialogue? Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress,” 86 Southern California Law Rev. 205–62.Google Scholar
Henke, Kristen L. (2013) “If It's Not Broke, Don't Fix It: Ignoring Criticisms of Supreme Court Recusals,” 57 Saint Louis University Law J. 521–46.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A., & Martinek, Wendy L. (2004) “Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 48 American J. of Political Science 123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A., & Martinek, Wendy L. (2006) Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision-Making. Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
(1943) “High Court Defers Anti-Trust Cases; Lack of a Quorum Delays Action on Alcoa and North American Indefinitely,” The New York Times, 9 October, 39.Google Scholar
Hsiang, Solomon (2013) “Plot Polynomial of Any Degree in Stata (With Controls),” Fight Entropy: The Global Environment and Economic Development. Available at: http://www.fight-entropy.com/2013/01/plot-polynomial-of-any-degree-in-stata.html (accessed June 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Knight, Jack, & Epstein, Lee (1996) “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” 40 American J. of Political Science 1018–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, David Paul (2012) “The Incredible Polarization and Politicization of the Supreme Court,” The Atlantic, 29 June. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/the-incredible-polarization-and-politicization-of-the-supreme-court/259155/ (accessed June 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E., & Clark, Tom S. (2012) “The Supreme Court's Many Median Justices,” 106 American Political Science Rev. 847–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Anthony (1958) “Tie in High Court a Major Problem,” The New York Times, 13 January, 22.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., & Klein, David E. (2006) “The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Study of Conflict Cases,” 40 Law & Society Rev. 135–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liptak, Adam (2010) “Justices to Examine Rights of Corporations,” The New York Times, 29 September, 20.Google Scholar
Lubet, Steven, & Diegel, Clare (2013) “Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB V. Sebelius,” 47 Valparaiso Univ. Law Rev. 883–905.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F., & J. Wahlbeck, Paul (2000) Crafting Law on the Supreme Court. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., & Quinn, Kevin M. (2002) “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999,” 10 Political Analysis 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., Quinn, Kevin M., & Epstein, Lee (2005) “The Median Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 83 North Carolina Law Rev. 1275–322.Google Scholar
McKeown, M. Margaret (2011) “To Judge or Not to Judge: Transparency and Recusal in the Federal System,” 30 The Rev. of Litigation 653–69.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. (1964) Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perry, H.W. (1991) Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Caprice (2004) “The Fox Guarding the Henhouse?: Recusal and the Procedural Void in the Court of Last Resort,” 57 Rutgers Law Rev. 107–82.Google Scholar
Roberts, John G. Jr (2011) 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. U.S. Supreme Court Public Information Office. Available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2011year-endreport.pdf (accessed June 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Rosen, Jeffrey (2007) “The Dissenter, Justice John Paul Stevens,” The New York Times, 23 September.Google Scholar
Rotunda, Ronald D. (2010) “The Point of No Return; Kagan's Recusals Are No Excuse for Retiree Curtain Calls,” The Washington Times, 11 October, 3.Google Scholar
Sample, James (2013) “Supreme Court Recusal from Marbury to the Modern Day,” 26 Georgetown J. of Legal Ethics 95–151.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Westerland, Chad, & Lindquist, Stefanie A. (2011) “Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model,” 55 American J. of Political Science 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segall, Eric J. (2011) “An Ominous Silence on the Supreme Court; Justice Elena Kagan Should Explain Why She's Not Heeding the Calls to Recuse Herself from the Soon-To-Be-Heard Obama Healthcare Case,” Los Angeles Times, 12 February, 26.Google Scholar
Sherman, Mark (2010) “Pfizer Stock Sold, Roberts to Hear Company's Cases,” The Associated Press, 29 September.Google Scholar
Sherman, Mark (2011) “Alito Owned Stock, Voted in Case with Disney's ABC,” The Associated Press, 31 May.Google Scholar
Smith, Lamar (2011) “What Did Kagan Do?” The Washington Post, 2 Decemeber, 21.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. (2011) The Supreme Court Database, Version 2011 Release 03. Available at: http://scdb.wustl.edu/index.php (accessed June 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Stempel, Jeffrey W. (1987) “Rehnquist, Recusal, and Reform,” 53 Brooklyn Law Rev. 589–667.Google Scholar
Stout, David (2008) “Justices Won't Hear Apartheid Suit,” The New York Times, 12 May.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Joseph, Schick, Marvin, & Rosen, David (1963) “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory,” in Schubert, G., ed., Judicial Decision-Making. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Robert (1944) “Way Opened to Hear Alcoa Monopoly Suit; House Bill Would End Legal Deadlock,” The Pittsburgh Press, 2 April, 13.Google Scholar
Thomas, Virginia (2010) “Clip: Ginni Thomas Remarks at Steamboat Institute,” C-Span Video Library. Available at: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/412028 (accessed June 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Transcript (2011) “Supreme Court 2012 Budget,” Testimony of Justices Anthony Kennedy Stephen Breyer before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, 14 April.Google Scholar
Virelli, Louis J. (2012) “Congress, the Constitution, and Supreme Court Recusal,” 69 Washington & Lee Law Rev. 1535–606.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J. (2006) “Strategy and Constraints on Supreme Court Opinion Assignment,” 154 Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 1729–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasby, Stephen (1978) The Supreme Court in the Federal Judicial System. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Weaver, Warren Jr (1975) “High Court and Disqualification,” The New York Times, 3 March, 22.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza 553 U.S. 1028 (2008).Google Scholar
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366 (1999).Google Scholar
Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000).Google Scholar
Cheney v. United States Dist. Court 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (Scalia, J., denying the motion to recuse).Google Scholar
FCC v. Fox Television Stations 556 U.S. 502 (2008).Google Scholar
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557 (2006).Google Scholar
Howsam v. Reynolds 537 U.S. 79 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird v. Tatum 409 U.S. 824 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., denying the motion to recuse).Google Scholar
Microsoft v. United States 530 U.S. 1301 (2000).Google Scholar
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 132 S.Ct. 2566 (2012).Google Scholar
PacifiCare Health Systems v. Book 538 U.S. 401 (2003).Google Scholar
United States v. Aluminum Company of America 148 F.2d 416 (2nd Cir., 1945).Google Scholar
United States v. Aluminum Company of America 320 U.S. 708 (1943).Google Scholar
United States v. Edwards 334 F.2d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 1964).Google Scholar