Hooker v. Haslam, 393 S.W.3d 156

Hooker filed a declaratory judgment in Davidson County challenging Judge Bivins’s appointment to the Court of Criminal Appeals under the Tennessee Plan and alleging the August 2, 2012 retention election violates the Tennessee Constitution.
Hooker sought to enjoin retention elections and asserted a right to be a candidate for the seat based on his view that the Tennessee Plan is unconstitutional.
The State moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds because Hooker had previously litigated the same grounds in state and federal courts.
The Court of Appeals scheduled expedited briefing and argument; Chief Justice Clark and Justice Koch recused themselves.
The Supreme Court ordered briefing on recusal; Hooker argued that the remaining justices had an “economic interest” in their offices that required disqualification.
The Court ultimately held that recusal was required under an objective standard, entered an order of recusal, and certified the need for a special Supreme Court to hear the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recusal standard applicable to Hooker’s motion before Rule 10B applies	Hooker argues for immediate recusal based on economic interests	State argues the motion is premature and lacks disqualifying interest under prior precedent	Pre-rule 10B standard applies; recusal granted under objective standard
Whether the justices must recuse due to an alleged economic interest in their salaries	Hooker asserts economic interest requires disqualification	State contends no disqualifying interest exists	Court finds appearance of economic interest; recusal appropriate
Whether res judicata or stare decisis bars reconsideration of retention elections	Hooker relies on prior rulings upholding Tennessee Plan	Defendants emphasize finality of prior decisions	Recusal decision focused on impartiality; not merits of constitutionality; but precedents remain persuasive (stare decisis)
Whether Rule 10B should retroactively govern this motion	N/A	N/A	Rule 10B prospectively applicable; pre-rule standard governs in this case
Whether a special Supreme Court should be appointed to hear the case	N/A	N/A	Recusal led to certification to the Governor for appointment of a special court

State by Shriver ex rel. Higgins v. Dunn, 496 S.W.2d 480 (Tenn. 1973) (upheld Tennessee Plan against constitutional challenge)
In re Hooker, 340 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. 2011) (discussed prior challenges and ethics of litigation strategy)
Holder v. Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission, 937 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. 1996) (retention elections constitutional; discusses recusal implications)
State ex rel. Hooker v. Thompson, 249 S.W.3d 331 (Tenn. 1996) (retention elections constitutional; special court considerations)
Hooker v. Anderson, 12 Fed.Appx. 323 (6th Cir. 2001) (federal precedents on similar challenges; preclusive considerations)
Mullins v. State, 294 S.W.3d 529 (Tenn. 2009) (res judicata considerations in Tennessee precedents)
Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (transactional approach to ‘same cause of action’ for res judicata)
Gay v. City of Somerville, 878 S.W.2d 124 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994) (Rule of Necessity considerations in disqualification)
Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (illustrates concerns about political pressures affecting recusal)
Kennedy v. Staples, 336 S.W.3d 745 (Tex.App. 2011) (illustrates limits on using recusal to manipulate system)