Hugh M. Caperton, et al. v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., et al.
The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only for actual bias or an economic interest in the case, but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."· AI-written
556 U.S. 868 · No. 08-22 · 2008 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 8, 2009 · argued Mar 3, 2009
Due process · Due process: impartial decision maker
Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed and remanded. Hugh M. Caperton, et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Hugh M. Caperton, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2008 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Anthony KennedyWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
John RobertsWrote a dissent
Antonin ScaliaWrote a dissent
Samuel AlitoJoined a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Hugh M. Caperton, et al.Coal company or coal mine operator
- Respondent
- A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., et al.Coal company or coal mine operator
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Federal common law; Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 8, 2009DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Hugh M. Caperton, et al. won.
- Mar 3, 2009ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court: reversed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the West Virginia trial court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
13 other argued cases since 1946 on due process: impartial decision maker, newest first.
- Williams v. Pennsylvania579 U.S. 1Jun 9, 2016 · 579 U.S. 1Due process5–36–3 band
- John Patrick Liteky, Charles Joseph Liteky and Roy Lawrence Bourgeois v. United States510 U.S. 540Mar 7, 1994 · 510 U.S. 540Due process9–0Unanimous band
- Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.486 U.S. 847Jun 17, 1988 · 486 U.S. 847Due process5–45–4 band
- Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie et al.475 U.S. 813Apr 22, 1986 · 475 U.S. 813Due process8–0Unanimous band
- Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. McClure et al.456 U.S. 188Apr 20, 1982 · 456 U.S. 188Due process9–0Unanimous band
- Smith, Correctional Superintendent v. Phillips455 U.S. 209Jan 25, 1982 · 455 U.S. 209Due process6–36–3 band
- United States v. Raddatz447 U.S. 667Jun 23, 1980 · 447 U.S. 667Due process5–45–4 band
- Marshall, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Jerrico, Inc.446 U.S. 238Apr 28, 1980 · 446 U.S. 238Due process9–0Unanimous band
- Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 et al. v. Hortonville Education Assn. et al.426 U.S. 482Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 482Due process6–36–3 band
- Withrow et al. v. Larkin421 U.S. 35Apr 16, 1975 · 421 U.S. 35Due process9–0Unanimous band
- Taylor v. Hayes, Judge418 U.S. 488Jun 26, 1974 · 418 U.S. 488Due process8–18–1 band
- Ward v. Village of Monroeville409 U.S. 57Nov 14, 1972 · 409 U.S. 57Due process7–27–2 band
- In re Murchison et al.349 U.S. 133May 16, 1955 · 349 U.S. 133Due process6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.