Legal Opinion
In Re: Executive Office of the President
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided June 12, 2000No. 00-5134PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Upon consideration of the letter received on April 19, 2000, by the Clerk of the Court from Judicial Watch, Inc., construed as a motion for recusal, it is
ORDERED that the motion be denied. Neither 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) nor Canon 2A of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires recusal in this case. Hearing a case involving the conduct of the President who appointed me will not “create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that [my] ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity,…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Clinton v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Nixon v. SiricaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
3Cited by19 opinions
- ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA, INC. v. CafesjianDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Baker & Hostetler LLP v. United States Department of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2006
- Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- McKee v. United States Department of JusticeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
- Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.