Breaking: Luzerne County, PA Files Motion in Supreme Court for Justice Barrett to Recuse from Deciding Case


Against this backdrop, and in the aftermath of Justice Barrett’s nomination, a public poll reflected significant concern with her presiding over matters related to the presidential election. The poll, conducted by research firm SSRS on behalf of CNN, asked whether Justice Barrett “should or should not promise to recuse herself from any cases which could affect the outcome of this year’s presidential election.”

Of the respondents, 56% said that Justice Barrett should recuse herself from such matters, while 34% said she should not (10% had no opinion).,.aca.pdf (last visited October 27, 2020). While constitutional matters certainly cannot be governed by public polling, this example does offer a glimpse into a concern about the “appearance” which Justice Barrett’s presiding in the present matter entails. So do a variety of editorial and op-ed pieces published in the weeks since her nomination. See, e.g., Mario Nicolais, Barrett must recuse from 2020 election cases, shield Supreme Court from Trump corruption, USA Today, Oct. 12, 2020, (last visited October 27, 2020); Editorial Board, Judge Barrett must recuse herself in any election case, Newark Star-Ledger, Oct. 18, 2020, (last visited October 27, 2020);
Editorial Board, Booker is right: Barrett should recuse herself on election cases, Newark Star-Ledger, Sept. 29, 2020, (last visited October 27, 2020); Renee Knake Jefferson,Why Amy Coney Barrett must recuse herself from election-related cases, NY Daily News, Oct. 26, 2020, (last visited October 27, 2020).

Professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University School of Law, who does not believe Justice Barrett’s recusal is necessary, recognizes it may nonetheless be prudent, especially in light of the President’s unfortunate


Comments are closed.