Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Texas Brine Company, LLC v. Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC
Paid petition · Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, No. 2018 CA 0068
Before the decision, about 6.3× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before and a First Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.
Question presented
“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). To that end, “[r]ecusal is required when, objectively speaking, the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905, 907 (2017) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). To vindicate this right, a litigant who demonstrates a genuine concern of judicial bias must have recourse to an evidentiary hearing to uncover the true facts. Indeed, “[t]his Court has long held that the remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215 (1982) (emphasis added). Neutral judges and jurors are both essential to due process, and the procedural protections should be in accord. Relevant here, Louisiana law requires the random assignment of cases and judges to appellate panels. See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2164.1; La. Rev. Stat. § 13:319. But, in the sprawling and politically sensitive litigation below, one Louisiana appellate judge has sat on panels handling thirty-one of fifty-two appeals and has signed sixty-six of one hundred six single-judge orders. Petitioner has presented evidence that the odds of those distributions occurring by random chance—the method of allocation mandated by state law—are infinitesimally low: 24.5 million to one and 25.7 tredecillion to one, respectively. No party has offered an innocent explanation for that facially unlawful level of participation. The question presented is: When a litigant presents a colorable claim of judicial bias, does due process entitle that litigant to an evidentiary hearing?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Paul Whitfield Hughes
McDermott Will & Emery
For respondent
Andrea Leigh Albert
Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith
Proceedings
- Dec 09 2019Petition DENIED.
- Nov 13 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
- Nov 06 2019Waiver of right of respondent Chubb Custom Insurance Company to respond filed.
- Nov 06 2019Waiver of right of respondent Scottdale Insurance Company to respond filed.
- Nov 05 2019Waiver of right of respondent RLI Insurance Company to respond filed.
- Nov 04 2019Waiver of right of respondent National Surety Company to respond filed.
- Nov 04 2019Waiver of right of respondent TIG Insurance Company to respond filed.
- Nov 04 2019Waiver of right of respondents The Travelers Indemnity Company (individually and as success to Gulf Insurance Co. and the Travelers Indemnity Compnay of Connecticut to respond filed.
- Oct 31 2019Waiver of right of respondents Zurich American Insurance Company, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, Steadfast Insurance Company to respond filed.
- Oct 31 2019Waiver of right of respondent North American Capacity Insurance Company to respond filed.
- Oct 28 2019Waiver of right of respondents National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., AIG Specialty Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company, The Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania to respond filed.
- Oct 28 2019Waiver of right of respondent Sol Kirschner to respond filed.
- Oct 25 2019Waiver of right of respondents Browning Oil Company, Inc., LORCA Corporation and Colorado Crude Company to respond filed.
- Oct 25 2019Waiver of right of respondent Reliance Petroleum Corporation to respond filed.
- Oct 23 2019Waiver of right of respondent Legacy Vulcan LLC to respond filed.
- Oct 22 2019Waiver of right of respondents Certain London Market Insurance Companies, iet al. to respond filed.
- Oct 03 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 6, 2019)
- Aug 26 2019Application (19A106) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until October 3, 2019.
- Aug 23 2019Application (19A106) to extend further the time from September 3, 2019 to October 3, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.
- Jul 25 2019Application (19A106) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until September 3, 2019.
- Jul 24 2019Application (19A106) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 4, 2019 to October 3, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.