Kristin Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger - Memorandum Regarding Motion to Disqualify
630 F.3d 909
9th Cir.2011Background
- Recusal motion filed by Proponents alleging the judge’s impartiality could be questioned due to his wife’s public views and leadership of the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC).
- The judge states his wife’s views are independent and not imputable to him, and that §455(b)(5)(iii) does not create an “interest” warranting recusal.
- The judge explains he does not participate in proceedings where ACLU/SC appears before the court and that he recuses himself in such cases as a policy.
- ACLU/SC’s limited involvement in the district court proceeding here consisted of amici briefs signed by others; no filing by the organization appeared before this court.
- Section 455(a) analysis follows, with the judge arguing that robust public service by spouses does not automatically require recusal, and that no special factors exist to force recusal.
- Ultimately, the judge denies the motion, holding no substantial interest or influence could affect his impartiality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §455(b)(5)(iii) required recusal due to the spouse’s position | Proponents argue the wife’s role as ACLU/SC director creates a cognizable interest | Reinhardt contends there is no such interest or substantial effect from the wife or organization | No recusal under §455(b)(5)(iii) |
| Whether §455(a) requires recusal based on spouse’s views | Proponents claim potential bias due to spouse’s public opinions | Reinhardt maintains no reasonable belief of partiality; views are independent | No recusal under §455(a) |
| Whether past or peripheral district-court filings by ACLU/SC create a cognizable interest | Arguments suggest potential benefit to ACLU/SC from decision | Peripheral filings did not create a substantial interest | No recusal based on district-court participation |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (limits on implied bias and recusal under §455)
- Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301 (2000) (recusal related to a relative’s participation in related proceedings)
- Cheney v. Dist. Ct., 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (required standard for assessing appearance and actual impartiality)
- Baker & Hostetler LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 471 F.3d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (rare and extraordinary circumstances for §455(a) recusal when related to prior government service)
- Nelson v. United States, 718 F.2d 315 (9th Cir. 1983) (implication of impartiality standard under §455(a))