Supreme Weekly: Recusals and a surprise encounter

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Judgepedia's Supreme Weekly: The States



BP-Initials-UPDATED.png This article may not adhere to Ballotpedia’s current neutrality policies.



September 22, 2011

by: Katy Farrell

Today in Supreme Weekly we look at two recusals in the state supreme courts, and encourage you to ponder a rare apology.

Recusals

ILLINOIS
Ballotpedia:Original Content project

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Robert Thomas this week sat out of case regarding an alleged torture of a criminal suspect by a police officer thirty years ago. Thomas did not give any reason for his recusal, nor is he required to.[1]


MICHIGAN

In Michigan, lawyers are asking that Justice Stephen Markman recuse himself from a case pending before the Supreme Court. The case alleges that Governor Rick Snyder's 2011 law giving state emergency managers more power is unconstitutional. The law was pushed through to help municipalities and school districts in financial distress, but allows managers far-reaching powers, such as the right to disregard union contracts.[2]

At issue is the work of Justice Markman's wife, who serves with the state Attorney General's Office and is currently trying another case having to do with the law. While there are no official recusal rules that apply in this case, generally if any party has a valid reason to question the impartiality of a justice, she or he should sit out.[2]

Neither party has commented on the request for recusal.


Surprise encounter

CONNECTICUT

The Hartford Courant surprised readers this week when one its writers recounted a story involving Richard Palmer, of the Connecticut Supreme Court, and Susette Kelo. At a dinner in May 2010, the writer recounted the story of Kelo, whose battle to keep her house in the face of eminent domain policy wound up in the Supreme Court of the United States in Kelo v. City of New London. According to the writer, that day Justice Palmer apologized to Kelo, stating, "Had I know all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently."[3] Palmer was part of the 4-3 majority in the case before the Connecticut Supreme Court.

See also

Footnotes