Recusal is the legal process by which a judge, juror, or other adjudicator steps aside from participating in a case due to potential bias, conflict of interest, or appearance of impropriety.
Historical and modern legal frameworks outline specific grounds for recusal, such as personal or financial conflicts of interest, prior involvement in a case, or demonstrated bias.
Providing that the judge or decision-maker must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned, and more likely that there is due process.
[1] Recusal laws and guidelines are established in various legal systems worldwide, including the United States, where they are regarded as cornerstones of judicial impartiality.
Proposed changes include mandatory disclosure of campaign expenditures by litigants and stricter recusal standards for those benefiting from interested parties.
[5] The term "recuse" originates from the Latin word "recusare," meaning "to demur," or "object" reflecting the fundamental principle of rejecting participation when impartiality is in doubt.
For example, US Department of Interior employees should recuse themselves if their decisions could have a direct and predictable effect on their financial interests or those of their family members or close associates.
For U.S. federal judges, this includes any ownership of legal or equitable interests, no matter how small, or relationships such as director or adviser in the affairs of a party.
[12] The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution, for example, explicitly require judges to recuse themselves from cases where they have a financial interest in the outcome.
[14] The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution explicitly require judges to recuse themselves from cases where there is a strong possibility the decision would be biased.
[16] Some Judges and officials are advised to recuse themselves from cases where they have engaged in policy advocacy or public comments that could affect their impartiality.
[citation needed] At times justices or judges will recuse themselves sua sponte (on their own motion), recognizing that facts leading to their disqualification are present.
[1][19] However, where lower courts are concerned, an erroneous refusal to recuse in a clear case can be reviewed on appeal or, under extreme circumstances, by a petition for a writ of prohibition.
Luttig had previously clerked for Justice Scalia, and had led the confirmation efforts on behalf of both David Souter and Clarence Thomas.
[24] In 2024, Justices Alito and Thomas have refused calls to recuse themselves from January 6th cases where their spouses have taken public stances or been involved in efforts to overturn the election.
[25][26][27][28] On Sep 28th 2021, the Wall Street Journal's investigative team found that 131 judges did not recuse themselves in cases where they had a financial interest through ownership of stocks in the relevant parties.
[29] A significant dispute over recusal occurred in 1946 when Justice Hugo Black participated in the Jewell Ridge Coal case despite a conflict involving his former law partner.
of Pa. v. Local 542, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, explaining why he as an African American judge with a history of active involvement in the civil rights struggle was not obligated to recuse himself from presiding over litigation concerning claims of racial discrimination.
[32] Jewish federal Judge Paul Borman relied on the Higginbotham opinion in part in his 2014 decision not to recuse himself from the trial of Palestinian-American Rasmea Odeh.
[1] Requiring opinions for the denial or approval of recusals would help to establish a track record of evidence that would make it easier for appeals courts to review.
[33] On March 2, 2017, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the U.S., recused himself while the department investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election due to concerns over his impartiality as a member of the Trump campaign team.