Politicians and activist groups are increasingly pushing for judges to recuse themselves from high-profile cases on weak grounds. Senator Elizabeth Warren attempted to have Judge Don Willett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recuse himself from a case involving credit card fees because his child’s savings account had a minimal investment in a bank not involved in the case. The U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct correctly determined that Judge Willett’s investment was too indirect to warrant recusal, but Senator Warren was not satisfied.
Attorney Ted Olsen criticizes the rise in unfounded judicial-ethics attacks and recusal demands by non-parties in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. He highlights instances where interest groups have pressured judges to recuse themselves based on tenuous investment connections, causing delays and distorting outcomes.
As Olsen points out, baseless calls for recusal are not limited to one side of the political spectrum. They can have far-reaching implications beyond individual cases, aiming to undermine the judiciary’s legitimacy and erode public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.
These tactics have harmful consequences, as they seek to intimidate judges into unnecessary recusals or influence their decisions. Ultimately, these attacks on judicial independence could pave the way for measures that threaten the judiciary’s autonomy.
