Florida judicial nominee Edward Artau has come under fire for an ethically dubious decision he made as a state court judge. Earlier this year, while he was lobbying for Donald Trump to name him as a federal judge, he ruled in a case where Trump was a party, in his capacity as a private citizen rather than as president-elect or president. (You can read more about it in our opposition letter.)
Surely he should have recused himself from the case. At Artau’s committee hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal brought this up.
Artau said that he was not required to recuse himself under Florida’s judicial canons of conduct. He said he was required to hear any case he was assigned to except for specific reasons listed in Canon 3E. And, he claimed, none of these reasons applied.
But Artau conveniently left out a key part of Canon 3E. He made it sound like those are the only reasons to recuse. But the canon specifically says that those are not the only reasons to recuse. It gives those as examples. Here’s what Canon 3E actually says:
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where … [the reasons Artau listed].
So the fact that you are in the process of asking one of the parties for a huge favor that will change your life, bring you professional accolades – oh, and give you a guaranteed job with a guaranteed income for the rest of your life – just might count as a reason to recuse yourself, even if it doesn’t fit any of the examples listed in the canon.
It might even count as the judge having a “more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding,” which is one of the examples listed in the canon that mandates recusal.
Either way, Artau should have recused himself.