Must a circuit judge recuse when the chief justice is a defendant and appointed that judge to a committee?

Plain-English summary

An inmate sought declaratory and injunctive relief over a statute’s constitutionality, naming the Alabama chief justice as an official-capacity defendant. The chief justice had also appointed the assigned circuit judge to a committee. The Commission found no disqualification basis on those facts.

The opinion says a judge’s presence as a party, or a challenge to the legality of a judge’s official actions, does not by itself reasonably call the assigned judge’s impartiality into question under Canon 3C(1). It also says the committee appointment alone created no appearance of impropriety.

The Commission reserved the possibility that special circumstances might require recusal, including a social, financial, nonjudicial, or extraordinary relationship, the nature of the case, or its likely effect on the judges’ future working relationship.

In practice

The opinion addressed an official-capacity suit seeking no damages and a committee appointment by the defendant chief justice. It left open whether additional relational or case-specific facts would warrant disqualification.

Common questions

Q: Did naming the chief justice as a defendant automatically disqualify the circuit judge?

A: No. The Commission found no such basis on the presented facts.

Q: Did the committee appointment change the answer?

A: No. The opinion says that appointment alone did not create an appearance of impropriety.

Q: Could other relationships require recusal?

A: Yes. The opinion identifies extraordinary, social, financial, or other nonjudicial relationships as possible additional circumstances.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 3C(1)’s reasonable-impartiality standard and draws on prior Commission opinions concerning another judge’s status as a party.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinion 98-701, judge as party and special circumstances
• Alabama Advisory Opinion 92-442, chief justice as party

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 08-896: Retired Judge’s Law Firm Advertising
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 08-897: Reporting Matters Under Submission

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 09-898

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: March 13, 2009 ADVISORY OPINION 09-898
DISQUALIFICATION: CASE SEEKING
D E C L A R A T O R Y J U D G M E N T R E
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE AND
PARTY-DEFENDANT IS STATE SUPREME
COURT CHIEF JUSTICE WHO HAS
APPOINTED ASSIGNED JUDGE TO
COMMITTEE
ISSUE
Should a circuit judge disqualify himself from
presiding in a case where the Alabama Supreme
Court chief justice is a party-defendant and the
inmate-plaintiff is seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief, on the alleged unconstitutionality
of a statute? Answer: No. Should the judge
disqualify if the chief justice has appointed him to
a committee? Answer: No.
FACTS
The inmate-plaintiff has filed a case seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief on the allegation
that a statute is unconstitutional. He does not seek
monetary damages. One of the party-defendants is
the Alabama Supreme Court chief justice, in her
official capacity. She has appointed the assigned
judge to a committee.
DISCUSSION
In Advisory Opinion 92-442, the Commission
determined that a judge should not disqualify in a
civil suit in which the state chief justice and an
associate justice were seeking monetary damages.
The Commission explained, as follows:
The suggestion that you are disqualified
because the chief justice and an associate
justice of the Alabama Supreme Court are
plaintiffs in the case and because of the
broad supervisory and administrative
powers possessed by the chief justice and
the Supreme Court is without merit. If this
contention were accepted,then everyother
judge in Alabama who was not a justice on
the Supreme Court would be disqualified
any time any member of the Supreme
Court was involved in a civil suit. If such
were true, then the “rule of necessity”
would apply. “If no judge can be found
who possesses the requisite degree of
impartiality in regard to a particular case,
the rule of necessity dictates that the
original judge assigned to the case need
not be disqualified despite his or her
partiality.” J. Shaman, S. Lubet, J. Alfini,
Judicial Conduct and Ethics§ 5.03(1990).
Moreover, the mere fact that a judge is a party or
that the legality of actions taken by a judge in her
official capacity is questioned does not create a
reasonable question as to the impartiality of the
judge to whom the case is assigned, i.e., a
sufficient cause for disqualification under Canon
3C(1). Advisory Opinion 98-701.
Special circumstances, however, may require
disqualification, such as a social, financial, “non-
judicial,” orextraordinaryrelationshipbetweenthe
party-judge and the judge to whom the case is
assigned; the nature of the particular case; or its
potential impact on future working relations
between the party-judge and the judge to whom the
case is assigned. Advisory Opinion 98-701. For
example, in advising the judges of the Court of
Civil Appeals to disqualify from participating in
the action of a title company suing the chief justice
for breach ofcontract, the Commission in Advisory
Opinion 95-587 undoubtedly considered the
particulars of the case, i.e., an action for monetary
damages from the chief justice, and the future
working relations of the judges and the chief
justice. The additional factor proposed here – that
the chief justice appointed the judge to a committee
– does not alone generate any appearance of
impropriety.
Under the facts provided, the Commission finds no
basis for disqualification.
ADVISORY OPINION 09-898
Page 2
REFERENCES
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3C(1).
Alabama Advisory Opinions 98-701, 95-587, and
92-442.
J. Shaman, S. Lubet, J. Alfini, Judicial Conduct
and Ethics § 5.03 (1990).
____
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
19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial
InquiryCommission. For further information,you
may contact the Judicial Inquiry Commission,
P.O. Box 303400, Montgomery, Alabama 36130-
3400; tel.: (334) 242-4089; fax: (334) 353-4043.