Sao Paulo State of Federative Republic of Brazil v. American Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229 (2002)

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  Next

OCTOBER TERM, 2001

Syllabus

SAO PAULO STATE OF THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL v. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., INC., et al.

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

No. 01-835. Decided April 1, 2002

Respondents moved the District Judge in this tobacco-products liability case to recuse himself under 28 U. S. C. § 455(a) because, before his appointment to the bench, his name appeared on a motion to file an amicus brief by the Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association (LTLA) in the similar Gilboy suit against some of the same defendants. As he had done in a companion case, Republic of Panama I, the judge refused to disqualify himself on the grounds that he was erroneously listed as LTLA president on the Gilboy motion when he no longer held that post, and that he took no part in preparation or approval of the Gilboy brief. In Republic of Panama I, the judge found it unsurprising that he was unaware of the brief because the LTLA affixed its president's name to all motions to file amicus briefs. The Fifth Circuit reversed, citing its prior decision reversing the judge's order denying recusal in Republic of Panama I.

Held: The Fifth Circuit's decision is inconsistent with Liljeberg v. Health

Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U. S. 847, which stated that § 455(a) requires judicial recusal "if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge" of his interest or bias in the case, id., at 861 (internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit considered what a reasonable person would believe without knowing that the judge's name was added mistakenly and without his knowledge to a pro forma motion to file an amicus brief in a separate controversy. The decision whether his impartiality might reasonably be questioned should not have been made in disregard of the facts that he took no part in the preparation or approval of the amicus brief and that he was only vaguely aware of that brief. When those facts are taken into account, it is self-evident that a reasonable person would not believe that he had any interest or bias.

Certiorari granted; 250 F. 3d 315, reversed and remanded.

229

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007