Must a judge recuse from a diocesan property dispute when the judge belongs to another parish in that diocese?

Plain-English summary

A judge assigned to a property dispute between an Episcopal diocese and a local parish belonged to another parish in the same diocese. The case concerned ownership of the local church property after its members allegedly withdrew from the diocese. The judge said he was impartial and had no bias.

The Commission said religion alone does not establish bias under Canon 3C(1)(a). It nevertheless found a reasonable question about this judge's impartiality under Canon 3C(1)'s general standard, because the litigation directly concerned the parish-diocese relationship and strongly debated church issues. It noted that judges outside the denomination were available.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, after the Alabama Supreme Court's 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.

Common questions

Q: Did church membership itself prove the judge was biased?

A: No. The Commission expressly distinguished religious identity from personal bias.

Q: Why did the case still require recusal?

A: The property and withdrawal issues went to the relationship between the parish and the diocese of which the judge was a member.

Background and rules framework

Alabama Canon 3C(1)(a) addresses actual bias and disputed-fact knowledge. The Commission found no stated basis under that subsection, but applied Canon 3C(1)'s broader reasonable-question standard to the particular church dispute.

Citations and references

The opinion cites Alabama Canons 3C(1) and 3C(1)(a); In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350 (Ala. 1984); Ex parte Duncan, 638 So. 2d 1332 (Ala. 1994); United States v. State of Alabama, 582 F. Supp. 1197 (N.D. Ala. 1984); and Advisory Opinion 93-510.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 93-510: Church Friendship and Recusal

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions

• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 01-769

• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: JANUARY 24, 2001 ADVISORY OPINION 01-769
DISQUALIFICATION DUE TO CHURCH
MEMBERSHIP IN CASE INVOLVING
CHURCH DIOCESE
ISSUES
Is a judge disqualified to hear a property
dispute action by the Episcopal Church in a
particular diocese against a church and its
minister, wardens and vestry due to his
membership in another parish church in the
same diocese? Answer: Yes, the
circumstances in the case create a reasonable
question as to the judge’s impartiality.
FACTS
A judge has been assigned a case between an
Episcopal diocese (a segment of the Anglican
Communion of Churches) and its bishop and
the members, priest and governing body of a
local church in the diocese. The action
involves a dispute over the ownership of the
local church property. The members, priest
and governing body of the local church are
alleged to have withdrawn from the diocese
and affiliated with another segment of the
Anglican Communion. According to press
reports, the withdrawal came because of
disagreement over strongly debated issues
within the Episcopal church. Issues to be
decided in the case concern who owns the real
property and local church building occupied
by the church members. These issues may
directly concern the relationship of a local
parish with the diocese, its bishop and
officers. The judge is a member of another
Episcopal parish in the diocese. The judge
states that he has no bias or prejudice
concerning a party and that he believes he can
impartially hear the case.
DISCUSSION
Canon 3C(1)(a) of the Alabama Canons of
Judicial Ethics provides that a judge is dis-
qualified in a proceeding in which he “has a
personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,
orpersonal knowledgeofdisputed evidentiary
facts concerning the proceeding.”
A judge’s religion does not constitute bias
toward that religion. United States v. State of
Alabama, 582 F. Supp. 1197, 1203 (N.D. Ala.
1984); Menora v. Illinois High School
Association, 527 F. Supp. 632 (N.D. Ill.
1981). Furthermore, in the analogous context
of jury selection, it is clear that mere
membership in a particular church involved in
a dispute is not ground to disqualify a
potential juror for actual bias. Birmingham
Baptist Hospital v. Orange, 284 Ala. 160, 223
So.2d 279 (Ala. 1969); and Tucker v.
Houston, 216 Ala. 43, 112 So. 360, 362
(1927). In the present situation, the judge has
stated that he has no bias or prejudice and that
he believes he can impartially hear the case.
If he has no personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts, there is no basis for dis-
qualification under Canon 3C(1)(a).
None of the other specific grounds of
disqualification listed under Canon 3C(1)
appear to have any potential applicability to
the case in question. Thus, the onlyremaining
issue is whether disqualification exists under
the general provision in Canon 3C(1), which
states that a judge is disqualified whenever the
judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.” The test under this provision is:
“Would a person of ordinary prudence in the
judge’s position knowing all of the facts
known to the judge find that there is a
reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s
ADVISORY OPINION 01-769
PAGE 2
impartiality?” In re Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350,
356 (Ala. 1984). The question under Canon
3C(1) is not whether the judge is impartial in
fact, but rather whether another person,
knowing all of the circumstances, might
reasonably question the judge’s impartiality.
Ex parte Duncan, 638 So.2d 1332, 1334 (Ala.
1994).
In AdvisoryOpinion 93-510, the Commission
considered whether a judge was disqualified
to hear an action in which a church was one of
the defendants due to the fact that the judge
occasionally attended services there and
considered the pastor a friend. The
Commission decided that the judge was not
disqualified to hear the case, noting that while
a close personal relationship with a party does
requiredisqualification,ordinaryrelationsand
associations with a party are not grounds for
disqualification.
In contrast to the relationship at issue in
Advisory Opinion 93-510, the issues here go
to the very nature of the litigation, which
involves the relationship between an
Episcopal parish, the real property occupied
by the parish, and the diocese in which the
parish is located. These issues and the alleged
withdrawal from the diocese concern matters
which are likely to invoke strong feelings
among Episcopalians. Under these
circumstances, the Commission is of the
opinion that the impartiality of the judge, as a
memberofthisparticulardenomination,might
reasonably be questioned, particularly where
other judges are available to hear the case who
are not members of this denomination.
REFERENCES
Alabama Advisory Opinion 93-510.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
3C(1) and 3C(1)(a).
Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Orange, 284
Ala. 160, 223 So.2d 279 (Ala. 1969).
Ex parte Duncan, 638 So.2d 1332 (Ala.
1994).
In re Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350 (Ala. 1984).
Menora v. Illinois High School Association,
527 F. Supp. 632 (N.D. Ill. 1981).
Tucker v. Houston, 216 Ala. 43, 112 So. 360
(1927).
United States v. State of Alabama, 582 F.
Supp. 1197 (N.D. Ala. 1984).
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
the judge who requested the opinion pursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
information, you may contact the Judicial
Inquiry Commission, 800 South McDonough
Street, Suite 201, Montgomery, Alabama
36104; tel.: (334) 242-4089; fax: (334) 240-
3327; E-mail: [email protected].