272 So. 3d 69
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Judge Marilyn Castle, a judicial candidate, ran a campaign ad two days before the 2016 election that named and criticized specific plaintiff personal-injury lawyers (including Broussard & David) for contributing to a PAC supporting her opponent. The ad was paid for by Castle's campaign and featured her in judicial robes.
- Broussard & David (relator) represented a party in a pending matter before Judge Castle and moved to recuse under La. Code Civ. P. art. 151(A)(4), alleging bias based on the ad attacking their firm and its PAC-related contributions.
- The recusal motion was heard by another judge (Duplantier), who denied it after applying a subjective "actual bias" standard and stating he found no actual bias.
- Relator sought writ relief; the reviewing court concluded the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard (subjective actual bias) rather than the objective Due Process test required by recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
- Applying the objective Rippo/Caperton standard and considering the ad’s timing, tone, content (naming relator’s counsel), and the Canons of Judicial Conduct, the court held recusal was constitutionally required and ordered Judge Castle recused and the case reallotted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper recusal standard | Rippo objective test; ad naming counsel creates intolerable probability of bias | Trial judge applied subjective "actual bias" standard and found none | Court holds objective Rippo standard governs; trial court erred |
| Whether ad’s content/timing requires recusal | Ad personally authored/approved by Castle, run 2 days before election, names relator’s lawyers — creates appearance/risk of bias | Castle argued campaign speech; other cases with Broussard & David proceeded without recusal | Court finds ad’s optics/timing/naming of counsel make risk of bias constitutionally intolerable; recusal required |
| Role of PAC contributions and ethics | PAC contributions lawful post-Citizens United; ad’s claim of unethical conduct is false and targets lawyers | Castle’s campaign defended ad as political speech | Court notes PAC contributions are lawful; ad’s attack on counsel exacerbates due-process concerns |
| Remedy | Recusal and random reassignment of the case | Deny recusal and keep case before Judge Castle | Writ granted; recusal ordered; case remanded for random allotment |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (corporate/PAC election spending is protected political speech)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (due process forbids biased decisionmakers; objective risk-of-bias inquiry)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (extreme campaign-related financial influence can require recusal under Due Process)
- Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (2017) (recusal analysis requires objective standard: whether probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable)
- Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (Due Process prohibits adjudicators with a direct personal interest; foundational statement on preventing even the probability of unfairness)