Fieger v. Cox
Docket: 133961
Court: Michigan Supreme Court; September 14, 2007; Michigan; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal a February 27, 2007 judgment from the Court of Appeals concerning a recusal motion filed by petitioners Geoffrey N. Fieger and others against Chief Justice Clifford W. Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Markman, and Young. The petitioners' motion sought recusal based on prior allegations of bias linked to judicial campaigns, but it provided no new grounds for recusal, simply reiterating claims made in ten previous motions that had all been denied. The Justices confirmed their ability to render fair and impartial decisions despite the allegations. The court clarified that the disqualification procedure cited by the petitioners is not applicable to Justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, as their disqualification process aligns more closely with that of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Cavanagh recused himself from the decision on this motion due to disagreement with current practices that restrict participation to the individual Justice in question. Consequently, the motion for recusal and an evidentiary hearing was denied. Justice Weaver dissents regarding the participation of Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan and Young in a case involving Mr. Geoffrey N. Fieger, referencing his previous dissents in related cases. He highlights Justice Markman's decision to abstain from participation, noting his compliance with constitutional requirements to provide reasons for nonparticipation. Weaver criticizes the current disqualification procedures under MCR 2.003, stating that they are inadequate and have led to inconsistent applications by justices over the past four years. He provides examples where justices have either adhered to or deviated from MCR 2.003, arguing that self-assessments of impartiality without an independent review fail to meet due process standards. Weaver calls for an end to the tradition of secrecy surrounding disqualification decisions to ensure an impartial judiciary. Justice Kelly also emphasizes the need for improved written procedures for disqualification motions, while Justice Markman abstains due to potential conflicts related to his 2004 reelection campaign. The document is certified by Clerk Corbin R. Davis as a true copy of the order from the Michigan Supreme Court.