Sometimes, during a court proceeding, the presiding judge will determine that he or she should not oversee the trial. In such instances the judge will be removed from the case by way of judicial recusal. This is a concept well establish and rooted firmly in the Constitution's guarantee of due process, which is essential to an impartial system.
The most common reasons for recusal involve instances where the judge's impartiality could be questioned – which is the subject of today's blog topic.
The Associated Press reported yesterday that the federal judge, who has been assigned to rule on the legality in the lawsuit over the President's recent executive actions on immigration, accused the Obama administration last year of participating in criminal conspiracy to smuggle children into the United States for the purpose of reuniting them with their parents living here illegally.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen held "DHS has simply chosen not to enforce the United States' border security laws," and the failure to enforce such were "both dangerous and unconscionable." Albeit the judge added "this court takes no position on the topic of immigration reform, nor should one read this opinion as a commentary on that issue."
The same judge wrote an extensive order in an immigration smuggling case in which he expressed his frustration about a number of other cases where children who arrived in the U.S. illegally alone were reunited with their parents also in the country illegally. The judge noted "instead of arresting the child's mother for instigating the conspiracy to violate our border security laws, the DHS delivered the child to her, thus successfully completing the mission of the criminal conspiracy."
Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, the Carolinas, and Texas are suing the federal government over the President's immigration executive action. U.S. District Judge Hanen has been assigned to this case. What do you think? Should Judge Hanen preside over this case or should he recuse himself?