Judicial Recusal

IAALS has released recommendations for modernizing judicial performance evaluation, including a set of reforms designed to help states strengthen judicial accountability, promote public trust, and ensure the courts meet the needs of today’s society.

Justice Alito's recusal controversy highlights the urgent need for clear judicial recusal procedures. IAALS' recommendations strive to boost transparency, efficiency, and trust in our judiciary.

Justice Alito's recusal controversy highlights the urgent need for clear judicial recusal procedures. IAALS' recommendations strive to boost transparency, efficiency, and trust in our judiciary.

State courts, where 95 percent of all cases are filed, are powerful. Their decisions can have profound effects on our rights and our lives—from whether Massachusetts officials can detain people based on a request from federal immigration authorities to whether a Michigan voter-initiated redistricting proposal could appear on the ballot.

IAALS’ recent report describes a large but relatively unknown group of executive branch adjudicators who are not "Administrative Law Judges" (ALJs) governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The report describes principal Non-ALJ characteristics, giving special attention to the degree to which agencies that employ them seek to protect their impartiality.

Questions about when judges should recuse themselves from hearing cases—usually because a party perceives their ability to be impartial to be in doubt—have drawn renewed attention recently due to high-profile cases and closely divided U.S. Supreme Court decisions. For example, the high court ruled last year in Williams v. Pennsylvania that a defendant was denied a fair hearing in a capital case when the state’s chief justice did not recuse himself, because decades earlier the justice had prosecuted the case as then district attorney.

Questions about when judges should recuse themselves from hearing cases—usually because a party perceives their ability to be impartial to be in doubt—have drawn renewed attention recently due to high-profile cases and closely divided U.S. Supreme Court decisions. For example, the high court ruled last year in Williams v. Pennsylvania that a defendant was denied a fair hearing in a capital case when the state’s chief justice did not recuse himself, because decades earlier the justice had prosecuted the case as then district attorney.

On November 3-4, 2016, IAALS convened a blue ribbon group of judges, scholars, and attorneys from across the country to discuss best practices for procedural rules for judicial recusal. The group discussed the need for procedures that are fair to both judges and litigants, that provide transparency without sacrificing efficiency, and that uphold the public’s confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary.