## Facts

- Parents and an advocacy organization filed a federal civil-rights action challenging Boston’s elementary school student-assignment plan as racially discriminatory.
- The district court (Judge Nancy Gertner) addressed threshold matters, including standing; it dismissed some claims for injunctive relief for lack of standing but allowed discovery on standing for remaining plaintiffs and permitted damages claims to proceed.
- During proceedings involving standing, class certification, and preliminary-injunction timing, a local newspaper published multiple articles criticizing or describing the court’s handling of the case.
- Believing one article contained inaccuracies, the judge sent a letter to the newspaper (copied to counsel) disputing the reporting.
- The newspaper later published an article based on a telephone interview with the judge quoting her comparison between this case and a different class action, stating that in the other case “every woman had a claim,” while this case was “more complex.”
- Petitioners moved for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), arguing the public comments could cause a reasonable observer to question the judge’s impartiality.
- The judge denied recusal; petitioners sought a writ of mandamus in the First Circuit to compel disqualification.

## Issues

1. Whether a district judge abused discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) by refusing to recuse after publicly commenting to the press about a pending case in a manner that could create an appearance of partiality.
2. Whether mandamus is an appropriate vehicle to review and correct an allegedly erroneous refusal to recuse in ongoing litigation.

## Decision

- The First Circuit granted mandamus and ordered the judge’s recusal and reassignment of the case.
- The court held the refusal to recuse was an abuse of discretion because the judge’s public comments created an appearance of partiality under § 455(a).
- The court stated its ruling did not find actual bias or prejudice and did not accuse the judge of ethical dereliction.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge must disqualify herself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
- The § 455(a) inquiry is objective: recusal turns on whether a reasonable person, fully informed of the relevant facts, would question impartiality, not on the judge’s subjective intent or actual neutrality.
- Judicial conduct that risks conveying a view on the merits or the credibility or sufficiency of a party’s claims—particularly through extrajudicial public commentary—can require recusal when it could be perceived as prejudgment.
- Mandamus, though extraordinary, may be used to remedy a clear abuse of discretion in recusal decisions where waiting for post-judgment appeal may inadequately protect public confidence during the pendency of the case.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit ordered recusal because a reasonable observer could read the judge’s media statements—made amid disputed standing and class-related issues—as signaling skepticism about the plaintiffs’ injuries and claims, creating an appearance of partiality barred by § 455(a), even absent proof of actual bias.


In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2001)