Here is the case, Caperton v. Massey Energy. Once again, I don’t see the federal issue involved. This was a state matter between two parties in the state of West Virginia. So what there is an appearance of impropriety here?
What if West Virginia simply gave a winning verdict to the side that paid the most money? So what? Wouldn’t that be equal under the 14th in that any party who paid the money could win, thereby equal? Why is it a federal matter?
How does something by simply “appearing” bad rise to an inequality that cries out for a federal remedy? Is there truly anything that is purely a state matter?
I ask these questions because I am a student of history and it truly puzzles me how in our dual system, EVERYTHING is a federal matter when our founding document sees a very limited role for the feds and a great and plenary role for the states…
If there are enough cases where there is the appearance of impropriety, people could begin to lose faith in the justice system of the state of WV (or all over the US), and begin to take matters into their own hands. That isn’t the kind of society that most people want.
That makes sense, and I don’t disagree with the intent behind the ruling, but if you live in Alaska, then why would you care about the WV judicial system?
Equal protection covers both rich and poor. Are you saying that you think bidding for a verdict isn’t forbidden under the Equal Protection clause?
With the Times, I wonder why this wasn’t unanimous. I can hardly imagine a bigger conflict of interest than here. Perhaps this decision will discourage expensive campaigns for judgeships, which would be a really good thing.
I wonder if the minority opinion would be the same if the donor slapped the $5 million on the bench. And I know the stated reason for the minority, but it astounds me they voted that way, and didn’t try to limit the scope of the decision to flagrant cases like this one - which from what I read even the majority was trying to do.
Because if this is okay in WV it is also okay in Alaska. I assume that there are some conflict of interest rules in WV that someone decided weren’t being violated in this case.
The US constitution guarantees a republican form of government, not a plutocracy and also that the states will give due process and equal protection under their laws. Under the hypothetical situation you describe, winner pays the most money, that would be a plutocracy, not a republican form of government. I make no comment on the particular case the supremes decided.
Please read the “due process” part of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was written out of a very specific recognition that injustice in state courts was a matter of concern to the entire country and might under some circumstances require a federal remedy. (The injustice which led to its creation was laws that made it impossible for African Americans to receive justice in the former Confederate states, but the application is obviously more broad.)
As has been pointed out, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution requires a fair tribunal. From the majority: “The Tumey Court concluded that the Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has “a direct, personal,substantial, pecuniary interest” in a case.” Regardless of whether or not you believe the facts in the case require recusal, ALL the justices agree that the Due Process Clause does apply to State courts.
You are from Alaska but are driving through WV with a bumper sticker that says “Ban Strip Mining”. You are arrested and thrown in jail on bogus charges. The judge at your trial has received large contributions from coal companies. Would you not appeal your conviction to the Supreme Court because it’s a “state matter”?
Well, even if there were no due process clause, he’d have remedies. You can’t really compare criminal law and civil law; it’s like adding apples and lawn mowers.
Even if the state wouldn’t hear his criminal complaint fairly, he’d still be entitled a day in federal court because of other laws and diversity jurisdiction.
This is pretty close to how I see it. In the absence of a real federal question, the state courts are supreme on purely state issues. However, under the 14th Amendment, citizens of West Virginia are also citizens of the United States entitled to due process and the equal protection of the law. Cases of actual or apparent impropriety or conflict of interest may well invoke 14th amendment protections to assure that justice is done – and that makes it a Federal question.
In answering the OP, I think it’s helpful to set out the text of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment:
As other posters have noted, this case isn’t an issue of equal protection, nor of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Rather, it’s a direct application of the underlined portion: the Constitution requires that the states afford due process of law to the citizens of the states. And since that is a requirement of the federal Constitution, enforcement of that constitutional requirement ultimately is for the federal courts.
I think the problem with this statement is that it assumes that the founding document hasn’t changed in the past 200+ years. In fact, with the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Congress and the states together agreed to make a major change to the organization of the founding document, and to create a much greater role for the federal government and the federal courts.
Thanks for all of the answers. First I want to say that it is terribly wrong for the Justice to have heard this case; he should have recused himself.
That being said, my understanding was that the intention of the 14th amendment was in response to the “black codes” being passed by the southern states. The idea was that no more could we have two classes of citizens in this country when it comes to the law, and that there would be a federal remedy for that.
But, when you go this far with it, can someone name something that would be considered “too far” for the federal government to go? What is something that would be entirely a state matter, not subject to federal restriction? Surely the
14th amendment wasn’t meant to go this far, right?
But it is right there in the Amendment: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. It seems to me that this was a perfect application of this clause, and that the clause has a specific context.
That was the proximate reason for the enactment of the Amendment, yes. But the language of the Amendment is clearly more broad, and reflects a general understanding (resulting from the slavery controversy and the Civil War era) that injustices at the state level could become a problem for the entire country, and required a potential federal remedy.
No, absolutely every action that a state government, or any agent of a state government may take must pass due process and equal protection measure. This has been the case for 150 years. This may sound harsh, but it isn’t that high of a bar. My state of Illinois has chugged along merrily for the last 150 years, spending billions of dollars per year, hiring police and running schools and courts, and not incidentally racking up a fair amount of political corruption, while very seldom having its actions struck down by federal courts.
But it was Secretary of State Madison who refused to deliver them, triggering the application for mandamus. The fact that something doesn’t get done when a person leaves office is not in itself a problem; it was the actual refusal by the new incumbent.