In case you were thinking about lawyers and filing recusal motions in pending cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, here are some names and titles and addresses where you can share your views. In particular, if you think that it is a lawyer's duty to a client to represent the best interests of the client, perhaps you also think that if your client is the United States that a recusal motion might be in order before any more time goes by.
If you think that, say so.
If you do not think so, continue to say and do nothing. It is not my task to persuade you, but consider this.
The recent behavior of Justice Alito and also of Justice Thomas leads many people to reasonably question their impartiality. This is the first and overall reason for them to recuse themselves in pending cases under the federal recusal statute. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).
Both of these gentlemen have involved their wives in their refusals to recuse themselves. But the federal statute says that they shall "also" recuse when they each know that he (in this case, they are both "he's") "his spouse ... has ... any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome[.]" 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 (b)(4). In my eyes, both of these gentlemen's statements are admissions that their respective spouses have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome in cases pending before them.
Time is urgent. The Supreme Court is going to issue its opinion in the immunity case and other insurrection-related cases any day now. Obviously, it would be better to have a recusal motion filed before any opinions are issued.
Since the lawyers for the United States have not filed a recusal motion, the people of the United States who reasonably question the impartiality of Justice Alito or Justice Thomas as judges in pending cases should make themselves heard. I have been EMailing and writing just that and I urge you to contact these lawyers as well. All it takes is to tell them that the recent behavior of Justices Alito and Thomas lead people to reasonably question their impartiality and that as lawyers with the United States for a client, these lawyers have an obligation to represent the best interests of their client and file a recusal motion now:
- In the case of Trump v. United States, the immunity case:
Jack L. Smith, Esquire, Special Counsel; et al.
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
- In the case of Fischer v. United States, one of the insurrection cases:
Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esquire, Solicitor General; et al.
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
- Everyone else:
J.P. Cooney, Esquire, Deputy Special Counsel
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
This lawyer has been involved in many cases involving issues of integrity and he is a former Chief of the integrity section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C.
Matthew M. Graves, Esquire
U.S. Attorney for D.C.
Denise Cheung, Chief of the Criminal Division,
U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C.
Liz Aloi, Esquire, Chief of the Public Corruption and
Civil Rights Section, U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C.
The mailing address for everyone at the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. is:
U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C.
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20579
Finally, the name and mailing address of the current Solicitor General of the United States. She clerked for Merrick Garland when he was a judge:
Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esquire, Solicitor General
Office of the Solicitor General
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Please read the disclaimer. The contents of this blog article, exclusive of names and titles and addresses, © 2024 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.