Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.
486 U.S. 847 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) occurs when a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether the judge had actual knowledge of the disqualifying circumstances. Such a violation may constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying vacating a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).
Facts:
- John Liljeberg, Jr. sought to develop a hospital, which required obtaining a state-issued 'certificate of need'.
- Liljeberg entered into an agreement with Health Services Acquisition Corp.'s predecessor (HAI), which HAI believed transferred ownership of the certificate-holding corporation, St. Jude, to it.
- A dispute arose over the ownership of St. Jude and the certificate, leading HAI to sue Liljeberg for a declaration of ownership.
- The case was assigned to Judge Robert Collins, who was a member of the Board of Trustees for Loyola University.
- While the ownership dispute was developing, Liljeberg was simultaneously negotiating a multi-million dollar land sale with Loyola University for the hospital site, a deal whose success depended on Liljeberg winning the lawsuit before Judge Collins.
- Judge Collins had attended university board meetings where the Liljeberg-Loyola negotiations were discussed, giving him actual knowledge of Loyola's financial interest shortly before the lawsuit was filed.
- During the trial, Judge Collins forgot about Loyola's interest in the litigation.
- Shortly after ruling in favor of Liljeberg, but while post-trial motions could still be filed, Judge Collins regained actual knowledge of Loyola's interest but did not disqualify himself or disclose the conflict.
Procedural Posture:
- Health Services Acquisition Corp. filed a declaratory judgment action against John Liljeberg, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- After a bench trial, Judge Collins entered judgment for Liljeberg.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- Approximately 10 months later, Health Services moved to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), alleging Judge Collins was disqualified under § 455(a).
- Judge Collins denied the motion to vacate.
- Health Services, as appellant, appealed the denial to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed and remanded for factual findings on the judge's knowledge.
- On remand, a different district judge found that Judge Collins lacked actual knowledge during trial but had it before and after. The court, bound by the Fifth Circuit's mandate, denied the Rule 60(b) motion.
- Health Services again appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed, vacated the district court's original judgment, and ordered a new trial before a different judge.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Liljeberg's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 federal judge's lack of actual knowledge of a disqualifying circumstance preclude a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and if not, may a final judgment be vacated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) when such a violation is discovered after the judgment has become final?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes. A violation of § 455(a) does not require scienter; it is judged by an objective standard of whether a reasonable person would question the judge's impartiality, not the judge's subjective state of mind. Such a violation can be grounds to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). The purpose of § 455(a) is to promote public confidence in the judicial process by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Unlike § 455(b)(4), which explicitly requires a judge's knowledge of a financial interest, § 455(a) contains no such requirement. A violation of § 455(a) can constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance' under Rule 60(b)(6), permitting relief from a final judgment. In this case, Judge Collins should have known about his fiduciary interest, and his failure to recuse himself upon regaining actual knowledge further compounded the appearance of impropriety, justifying vacating the judgment to uphold public confidence in the judiciary.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. A judge cannot violate § 455(a) based on facts of which the judge has no actual knowledge. The objective standard of § 455(a) should apply to the facts and circumstances known to the judge at the time. Imposing a 'constructive knowledge' standard is unworkable and not what Congress intended. Furthermore, using Rule 60(b)(6) to retroactively set aside a final judgment based on such a violation undermines the principle of finality, especially where, as here, the judge had no personal financial interest, and the motion was filed nearly a year after the judgment.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
No. The dissent agrees with Chief Justice Rehnquist that constructive knowledge cannot form the basis for a § 455(a) violation. However, it argues that the case should be remanded for the lower courts to determine in the first instance whether other 'extraordinary circumstances' exist that would justify relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the reach of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) by establishing that a judge's recusal obligation is triggered by the objective appearance of partiality, not the judge's subjective awareness of a conflict. The ruling subordinated the principle of finality of judgments to the greater interest of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. By holding that a judge's failure to recognize a conflict can be an 'extraordinary circumstance' under Rule 60(b)(6), the Court created a pathway to reopen cases long after they are considered closed, placing a greater burden on judges to be aware of their personal and fiduciary interests.
