Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal
556 U.S. 868 (2009)
Facts
A case concerning the Due process Clause in regards to judicial objectivity and campaign contributions. In 2002, a West Virginia jury found Massey Coal Co. and its affiliates liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, and interference with existing contractual relations. The jury awarded Hugh Caperton and other petitioners $50 million in compensatory and punitive damages. After their post-trial motions challenging the verdict and damages were denied, Massey appealed. After the verdict but before the appeal West Virginia held judicial elections in 2004. Massey’s chairman, Don Blankenship chief executive officer, and president supported the campaign of Brent Benjamin, candidate for the Supreme Court of Appeals for West Virginia. Blankenship, contributed more than the total amount of other Benjamin supporters. Benjamin won the election. Prior to the Massey filing its appeal with the West Virginia Supreme Court, Caperton moved to disqualify Justice Benjamin from …show more content…
A “probability of bias” cannot be defined in any limited way and does not provide any guidance to judges about when a recusal will be constitutionally required. Opening the door to recusal claims under the Due Process Clause for a “probability of bias” will bring out justice system into disgrace and diminish the confidence of the people in the fairness and integrity of their courts.

Justice Scalia dissented: the Court’s quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution cannot succeed. This is why some wrongs and imperfections have been deemed nonjusticiable. But do we do more good than harm by seeking to correct imperfections through expansion of our constitution mandate ungoverned by any discernable rule? No.