556 U.S. 868 (2009)
Caperton v. A.T.
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a judge to recuse themselves when a litigant has made significant contributions to their election campaign, in such a way that it creates a perceived risk of bias?
The Due Process Clause requires recusal when the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.
The Supreme Court held that Justice Benjamin's failure to recuse himself violated Caperton's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that under the extreme circumstances of the case, there was a constitutionally intolerable probability of bias.
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. is significant because it establishes a clear precedent for when the Due Process Clause can require judicial recusal due to potential bias. It highlights the impact of campaign contributions on judicial impartiality, setting a vital standard for future cases where the impartiality of a judge can reasonably be questioned. For law students, Caperton underscores the sensitive balance between the appearance of impartiality and the procedural guarantees of due process, and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.