When Caitlin Halligan, the newest judge on the highest court in New York State, the Court of Appeals, recused herself from what might be the biggest case to come before the seven-judge bench in memory, the question became why did she step aside.
She must explain.
The case is a lunacy petition concocted by partisan Democrats who are sore that the state’s very competitive congressional lines drawn by a court-appointed expert produced 15 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The Republican margin in the House of Representatives is only five, so jiggered New York’s districts might flip the chamber and hand power to the Democrats.
On the law and the state Constitution, the matter should be dismissed. The lines are fine, the state Independent Redistricting Commission failed in 2022 and will get another chance in 2032.
The Court of Appeals ruled last year that the IRC and the Legislature violated the Constitution and the remedy was the court-ordered districts. The Democrats now claim that it was only meant to be a two-year solution and the IRC should now re-start the process.
Halligan joined the Court of Appeals in April, making her the only judge to have not ruled in the 2022 case. The lower court split on the do-over case on July 13 and it went up the ladder. The briefs from the four parties and their lawyers came in on Sept. 18 and the top court issued a stay on Sept. 19.
The parties were: Anthony Hoffmann (lawyer Marc Elias) and Democratic IRC member Ken Jenkins (law firm Jenner & Block) supported new districts and Tim Harkenrider (lawyer Misha Tseytlin) and GOP-appointed IRC member Ross Brady (lawyer Timothy Hill) opposing.
Halligan participated in granting that stay.
In addition, there were two amicus briefs submitted, both urging the case be dismissed and the current lines remain in place. One was from the Lawyers Democracy Fund (lawyer Joe Burns) and the other was from the League of Women Voters of New York State (lawyer Jim McGuire).
Last Thursday, Oct. 12, an order was issued accepting the briefs and noting Halligan’s absence. That day she also signed and dated a Court of Appeals recusal form, checking the box that said: “I have or had a close personal or professional relationship with a party or lawyer involved in this matter.”
Since she didn’t find a problem with any of the parties or lawyers in September, is it one of the amicus briefs? Lawyer Joe Burns says he has never met Halligan. Halligan does know lawyer Jim McGuire. So what? Lots of lawyers and judges know each other. However, there’s no precedent of a judge quitting a case based on an amicus brief for a non-partisan civic group filed by a pro bono lawyer.
If that was the rule, it would be easy to knock any judge off a case via an amicus brief. The other explanation is that Halligan had a conflict with one of the parties or lawyers from September and she failed to get off the case then.
Court observers note that maybe Halligan didn’t want to rule against the Democrats who put her on the court and would have had to. But Halligan is also seen as a straight-arrow. So was she just afraid to stay on the case? Judge, why did you quit?
