This question is inspired by the circumstances surrounding the case of convicted murderer Napoleon Beazley: When the appeals in the case reached the Supreme Court, 3 of the 9 judges had to recuse themselves because they had personal ties to the murder victim.
What would happen if a legal case came up in which 6, maybe 7 or 8, maybe even all the judges of the United States Supreme Court had to recuse themselves?
I would assume that on any other judicial panel, there are rules in place for other judges to fill in for their colleagues. But as far as the Supreme Court of the United States is concerned, there are only 9 judges who can do the job.
In state supreme courts, the bring up other judges from the court of appeals when necessary. They sit as a justice pro tem In the federal system, district court judges occasionally sit on the Court of Appeals. I suppose the SCOTUS could call up pro tem Court of Appeals judges, but I haven’t researched it.
They can’t. The federal Constitution is very clear that the SCOTUS consists of those justices appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
There have been several cases where recusals have forced the Supreme Court to automatically affirm a lower-court ruling, because a quorum is not available.
What would happen in a case where the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction? I would guess that a large number of recusals in such cases would be exceedingly unlikely, but it’s not impossible.
I would think that the rule of necessity would apply.
“The principle that a judge will not be disqualified when the effect would be that no judge could hear the case is sometimes referred to as the ‘rule of necessity’”
Certain antitrust cases can be referred to a court of appeals. Under 15 USC 29, some cases could be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. in 1944, Congress saw that the Alcoa case, which had been in trial for over four years, was headed for multiple recusals at the Supreme Court. It added a provision permitting the Supreme Court to refer a case to a court of appeals for final decision. Indeed, in United States v. Alcoa, six justices recused themselves, and they sent the case to the Second Circuit for decision.
IIRC, the number of Supreme Court justices isn’t specified by law. In such a case where too many justices recused themselves to constitute a quorum, could the president opt to appoint a number of justices specifically to hear that case, with the understanding that they’d resign after the ruling?
This brings up an interesting question. Say there was some case, where it was obvious to the justices involved that the split would be 5-4 to overturn. (Let’s ignore how ‘obvious’ that may be). Is there anything preventing the 4 minority justices from recusing themselves to force an automatic affirmation?