Citation
Publication Date:
Format:
Bibliography:
"No man shall be a judge in his own cause." For four centuries, that has been one of the most well-established principles of Anglo-American law. Yet U.S. Supreme Court justices are a striking exception. In a letter just released by Alliance for Justice, more than a hundred law professors are calling on Congress to do something about it. Rep. Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.) is proposing to do just that and is seeking co-sponsors for a bill that would extend ethics regulation to the justices.
Recent events have again drawn attention to an anomaly in the U.S. approach to judicial ethics. Unlike any other judge, each individual who sits on the Supreme Court has unreviewable authority to determine whether he or she should withdraw from hearing a case for ethical reasons. The governing federal statute requires recusal whenever a justice's impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." But it provides no oversight mechanism, short of impeachment, if a justice unreasonably declines to withdraw.
Other publications by this author
- Foreword
- Senior Lawyers Serving Public Interests: Pro Bono and Second-Stage Careers
- Professional Regulation and Public Service: An Unfinished Agenda
- King & Spalding Was Right to Withdraw
- Lawyers as Leaders
- Leadership: Law, Policy, and Management
- Lawyers and Leadership
- Invitation to Join the Newly Formed International Association of Legal Ethics
- El Embarazo Adolescente y La Politica Pública
- Legal Ethics on a Global Scale
Author
- Deborah L. Rhode
- Stanford Law School
- rhode@stanford.edu
- 650 723.0319