Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia
541 U.S. 913 (2004)
Rule of Law:
A judge's impartiality is not reasonably questioned, and recusal is not required under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), based on a friendship with a government official who is a named party in a suit concerning only their official actions. Such suits are considered actions against the government itself, not the individual officer's personal interests.
Facts:
- Justice Scalia and Vice President Cheney were long-time friends, having served together in the Ford administration.
- In the spring of 2003, Justice Scalia invited Vice President Cheney to a duck-hunting trip in Louisiana planned for the following January; the Vice President accepted in the summer.
- The hunting trip was planned months before the petition for certiorari in the present case was filed with the Supreme Court.
- In January 2004, Justice Scalia, his son, and son-in-law flew to Louisiana for the hunt on a government plane with the Vice President.
- The hunting party was a large group of about 13 people, and Justice Scalia was never alone with the Vice President for any significant time, nor did they hunt in the same blind or discuss the pending case.
- Vice President Cheney was named as a defendant in the underlying lawsuit solely in his official capacity as Vice President of the United States and Chairman of the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG).
Procedural Posture:
- Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, Inc. filed separate lawsuits against Vice President Cheney and the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The District Court denied the government's motion to dismiss and ordered broad discovery to proceed.
- The government defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for a writ of mandamus to vacate the discovery orders.
- A panel of the D.C. Circuit dismissed the petition for mandamus and a subsequent petition for rehearing en banc was denied.
- The government defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
- Following the grant of certiorari, respondent Sierra Club filed a motion asking Justice Scalia to recuse himself from participation in the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Supreme Court Justice's friendship with the Vice President, evidenced by socializing on a hunting trip and accepting transportation on a government plane, require recusal from a case where the Vice President is a named party in his official capacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A Justice is not required to recuse from a case where a friend is a named party in an official-capacity suit, as such a suit implicates the government's interests, not the friend's personal fortune or freedom. The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) asks whether a judge's impartiality 'might reasonably be questioned,' and this analysis must be based on established legal principles, not media pressure or inaccurate reports. Historically, Justices have maintained close friendships with executive branch officials without recusing from cases involving their official actions. A distinction must be made between a suit against an officer personally, where friendship would warrant recusal, and a suit against the office, where it does not. Furthermore, recusal at the Supreme Court level carries the significant consequence of an eight-Justice court, which risks a tie vote and impairs the Court's function, counseling against recusal out of an excess of caution. The hunting trip and flight were social courtesies evidencing a friendship that is not, by itself, a basis for recusal in this type of case.
Analysis:
This memorandum strongly reinforces the distinction between official-capacity and personal-capacity lawsuits for the purposes of judicial recusal. It establishes a high bar for recusing a Supreme Court Justice, emphasizing the unique institutional harm of a potential 4-4 tie. The opinion serves as a forceful defense of judicial independence against media campaigns and public pressure, arguing that the recusal standard must be based on objective facts known to a reasonable observer, not on uninformed public opinion. This decision provides significant guidance on the ethical boundaries of social relationships between judges and government officials, particularly in the context of official-action litigation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia (2004)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"