## Facts

- A West Virginia jury found A.T. Massey Coal Co. liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, and tortious interference, awarding Hugh Caperton and related entities $50 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
- While Massey’s appeal was pending or imminent, Massey’s chairman and chief officer, Don Blankenship, spent about $3 million to support Brent Benjamin’s election to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals through contributions, independent expenditures, and a political organization.
- Blankenship’s spending exceeded the total spent by all other supporters and by Benjamin’s own campaign committee and vastly exceeded applicable contribution limits for direct donations.
- After Benjamin was elected, Caperton moved to disqualify Justice Benjamin based on the Due Process Clause and state judicial conduct rules, asserting Blankenship’s support created an intolerable risk of bias.
- Justice Benjamin denied recusal, citing no evidence of bias for or against any litigant.
- With Justice Benjamin in the majority, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the $50 million judgment (3–2); after rehearing and additional recusals by other justices, a reconstituted court again reversed, with Justice Benjamin again participating and in the majority.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether Justice Benjamin’s participation violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether due process is violated when an elected judge declines to recuse from a case involving a litigant whose principal officer had a significant and disproportionate influence on the judge’s election through extraordinary campaign spending while the case was pending or imminent.
2. Whether due process requires recusal based on an objective “probability of actual bias,” even without proof of subjective, actual bias.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (5–4) that due process required Justice Benjamin’s recusal under the circumstances.
- The Court applied an objective standard, concluding the probability of actual bias was too high to be constitutionally tolerable given the timing, size, and disproportionate nature of the campaign support by a party with a stake in the pending litigation.
- The Court stressed the holding was limited to extreme situations; most disqualification questions remain governed by state law and judicial conduct rules rather than the federal Constitution.

## Legal Principles

- The Due Process Clause guarantees an impartial decisionmaker and can require judicial disqualification even absent a direct pecuniary interest or proof of actual bias.
- The constitutional inquiry is objective: whether, under realistic appraisal of human tendencies, the situation presents a constitutionally intolerable risk that the average judge would be tempted to favor one side.
- A serious risk of actual bias exists when a person with a personal stake in a particular case has a significant and disproportionate influence in placing a judge on the case by directing or financing the judge’s election campaign while the case is pending or imminent.
- Relevant considerations include the size of the support relative to total campaign spending, its apparent effect on the election, and its timing in relation to the supporter’s stake in the litigation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that due process required recusal because extraordinary, disproportionate campaign support by a litigant’s principal officer—given while a major case was pending or imminent—created an objectively intolerable probability of judicial bias, rendering the state court’s judgment constitutionally infirm.


Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)