01-835 Sao Paulo State of the Federative Republic of Brazil v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al.

Listen to this article

The Fifth Circuit’s decision is inconsistent with Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988), which stated that §455(a) requires judicial recusal “if a reasonable person, KNOWING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge” of his interest or bias in the case. 486 U.S., at 861 (internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit reached the conclusion that recusal was required because it considered what a reasonable person would believe without knowing (or giving due weight to the fact) that the judge’s name was added mistakenly and without his knowledge to a pro forma motion to file an amicus brief in a separate controversy. Although Judge Barbier was indeed a leader of the LTLA at that time (he was member of the association’s executive committee), he took no part in the preparation or approval of the amicus brief; indeed, he was only “vaguely aware” of the case. Tr. of Status Conf. 8, App. to Pet. for Cert. 54a. The decision whether his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” should not have been made in disregard of these facts; and when they are taken into account we think it self-evident that a reasonable person would not believe he had any interest or bias.

Reversed and remanded.

Per Curiam.