Court rules on judge-donor case

The decision comes after a decade in which corporate interests and trial lawyers have waged increasingly costly campaigns to elect supreme court seats in 21 states. Most are in the Great Lakes region or in the South.

The justices said there was a real risk of bias - and certainly the appearance of unfairness - if one side spent millions of dollars to elect the judge.

"Just as no man is allowed to be the judge of his own cause," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, no person should be permitted to "choose the judge in his own cause."

The 5-4 decision came in the case of Don Blankenship, a West Virginia coal company executive who spent $3 million of his own money to oust one West Virginia Supreme Court justice and to elect a replacement.

At the time, Blankenship and his Massey Coal Co. were appealing a $50 million jury verdict for having driven a small competitor into bankruptcy. After the election, new Justice Brent Benjamin cast the deciding vote - twice - to throw out the verdict against Massey.

The case drew wide criticism as a seemingly blatant example of how money could buy justice, and it suggested the plot for a new John Grisham novel, "The Appeal." The West Virginia case also put a spotlight on the growing concern over the influence of money in state high-court races.

In California, superior court judges are elected, but the governor appoints state supreme court justices.

The US Supreme Court did not set a hard or clear rule for when a judge must step aside. The four dissenters called the ruling hazy. But, speaking for the majority, Kennedy said the principle of fairness required that judges not decide cases for favored benefactors.

Hugh Caperton, whose small company was driven into bankruptcy by Massey, appealed the case to the US Supreme Court after the West Virginia ruling.