Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Headline: A Justice denied recusal after a hunting trip with the Vice President, staying on the case and rejecting press-driven calls that his social ties require him to step aside.
Holding: The Justice ruled that his brief social hunting trip with the Vice President and a space-available government flight did not make his impartiality reasonably questionable in this official-action lawsuit, so he will not recuse himself from the case.
- Justice Scalia remains on the case; the Court will proceed without his withdrawal.
- Prevents a Justice’s withdrawal that would have left the Court with eight Justices.
- Holds that press criticism alone cannot force a Justice to step down.
Summary
Background
An environmental group challenged a White House energy task force and sought discovery of documents. The group filed a motion asking a Supreme Court Justice to step aside because he had recently gone on a duck-hunting trip with the Vice President and had flown down on the Vice President’s government plane. The Justice explains the trip facts: it was arranged by a private host who provides services to oil rigs, the trip predated the case reaching the Court, the Justice did not share a hunting blind with the Vice President, and he returned separately on a commercial flight.
Reasoning
The central question was whether those social contacts and a free space-available flight mean the Justice’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” The Justice applied the usual rule that friendship and routine social courtesies do not require recusal in lawsuits about official government action. He emphasized that the Vice President is sued only in his official role, that past Justices have had similar social ties, and that press editorials and inaccurate reports cannot determine recusal. He also explained the flight cost nothing to the Government beyond routine space-available transport and noted civil rules that treat officials as representing the government rather than themselves. Because established principles and the facts did not show a reasonable appearance of bias, he denied the recusal motion.
Real world impact
The Justice’s denial keeps him on the case, so the Court will decide the underlying questions about the energy task force and discovery. The opinion makes clear that ordinary social trips and space-available official transportation do not by themselves force a Justice off an official-capacity case. It also rejects the idea that newspaper criticism alone should dictate judicial recusals.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?