## Facts

- Idaho and Arizona filed suit against the Administrator of General Services challenging Congress’s extension of the ratification period for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and related matters arising from the ERA ratification process.
- The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Marion J. Callister.
- The National Organization for Women (NOW) intervened on the defense side in the underlying ERA litigation.
- NOW moved to disqualify Judge Callister under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), arguing that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and his prior service as a regional representative within the church.
- NOW emphasized that the LDS Church had publicly opposed the ERA and Congress’s extension of the ratification period, and asserted that regional representatives in several states had engaged in lobbying activity against the ERA.
- NOW did not argue that disqualification was required solely because Judge Callister was a member of the LDS Church; it focused on his former leadership role and the church’s public position on the ERA.
- NOW also relied on the LDS Church’s excommunication of Sonia Johnson, a leader associated with “Mormons for ERA,” contending that the event contributed to an appearance of partiality.
- Judge Callister responded that he had ceased serving as a regional representative months after the lawsuit was filed; that regional representatives were unpaid lay leaders with limited internal duties; that he had not spoken publicly about the ERA; and that the LDS Church was not a party to, and was not involved in, the pending litigation.
- The disqualification request followed an earlier disqualification challenge in the same litigation; NOW asked the court to treat its filing as a request to revisit the prior ruling in light of additional asserted facts.

## Issues

1. Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a reasonable person fully informed of the facts would conclude that Judge Callister’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned based on his LDS Church membership and his former position as a regional representative, given the church’s public opposition to the ERA and the deadline extension.
2. Whether NOW’s additional asserted facts—about alleged lobbying by other regional representatives and the excommunication of a prominent ERA supporter—required disqualification or justified revisiting the prior refusal to recuse.

## Decision

- The court denied NOW’s motion to disqualify Judge Callister under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
- The court held that the correct standard is an objective one: whether a reasonable person, aware of all the facts, would reasonably question the judge’s impartiality.
- Applying that standard, the court found that Judge Callister’s church membership, combined with his former lay leadership role, did not create a reasonable basis to question his impartiality in the ERA litigation.
- The court rejected the request to infer bias from the LDS Church’s public stance on the ERA, where the church was not a party and there was no showing that Judge Callister personally took part in political activity relating to the ERA.
- The court concluded that generalized assertions about lobbying by other church officials, without specific facts tying Judge Callister to such conduct, were insufficient to require recusal.
- The court also concluded that the excommunication of Sonia Johnson did not establish a reasonable question about Judge Callister’s impartiality in the case before him.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must step aside when an objective, fully informed reasonable person would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
- A judge’s religious affiliation, standing alone, does not require disqualification; the inquiry focuses on whether the particular facts create a reasonable appearance of partiality.
- An organization’s public position on a disputed public issue does not, by itself, require recusal of a judge who belongs to (or previously held a lay role in) that organization, absent a concrete connection to the litigation or specific conduct by the judge suggesting bias.
- Speculation, presumptions, and generalized claims about the conduct of third parties are not enough; a recusal request must point to facts that would cause a reasonable observer to question the judge’s neutrality.
- Events involving nonparties—such as internal disciplinary actions within a religious body—do not establish disqualification unless they meaningfully relate to the judge’s ability to decide the case fairly.

## Conclusion

In this decision, the district court addressed only whether Judge Callister should be disqualified from the ERA-related litigation. Applying the objective “reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts” test under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), the court held that Judge Callister’s LDS Church membership and former service as a regional representative, along with the additional circumstances NOW cited, did not create a reasonable basis to question his impartiality, and it therefore denied the motion to disqualify.


Idaho v. Freeman, 507 F. Supp. 706 (1981)