13

What would happen if someone put together a list of every judge in the US and filed a lawsuit naming all of them as defendants? Obviously, it would be a frivolous lawsuit, but who can dismiss it without a conflict of interest? I don't think a jury trial is possible without an impartial judge?

Someone
  • 17,046
  • 10
  • 84
  • 177

1 Answers1

22

It would be dismissed sua sponte on grounds including absolute judicial immunity from civil liability.

While conflict of interest rules for judges generally prohibit ruling on lawsuits in which you could potentially have an interest, there are narrow exceptions in cases where all judges are affected.

The Colorado Rule, which is similar in all U.S. jurisdictions, states:

In limited circumstances, the rule of necessity applies and allows judges to hear a case in which all other judges also would have a disqualifying interest or the case could not otherwise be heard.

Colo. Code. Jud. Cond. 2.11(D) ("Disqualification").

ohwilleke
  • 211,353
  • 14
  • 403
  • 716
  • So there's a specific legal provision for lawsuits against all judges? – Someone Aug 27 '22 at 16:01
  • 3
    @Someone Yes. There is. – ohwilleke Aug 27 '22 at 16:09
  • 1
    Has it ever happened, or is it preemptive in case someone more litigious than I had this same idea? – Someone Aug 27 '22 at 16:32
  • @Someone no, because of multiple reasons: 1) filing fees. 2) someone bringing many lawsuits on the same day is declared a vexatious litigant faster than he can file the papers. 3) a judge that is not included in a case can judge on a case involving another judge. – Trish Aug 27 '22 at 17:44
  • 8
    @Someone Literally all judges, no. But as I recall there was a case where someone sued the SCOTUS justices and quite a lot of others; they lost the case, appealed to SCOTUS, who all recused themselves, which effectively let the lower court's ruling stand. I think it was Shao v. Roberts. That case was dismissed sua sponte by the district court, as ohwilleke's answer indicates. Here's the SCOTUS "ruling" invoking lack of quorum. – zibadawa timmy Aug 27 '22 at 19:45
  • 6
    @Someone The rule is typically invoked, for example, in a challenge to the legality of the system for appointing judges in a state, or as another example, alleging that the fact that all state judges are beneficiaries of the state retirement system which has investments in company which is a party to a lawsuit constitutes a conflict of interest. – ohwilleke Aug 27 '22 at 21:54
  • 3
    The rule has also been invoked in at least one federal lawsuit by judges about judicial compensation: US v. Will. – cpast Aug 27 '22 at 22:50
  • 6
    Reading the Colorado Rule that you cite makes me wonder: if somebody sued every judge except one, then would that remaining judge be required to judge the case? – Tanner Swett Aug 28 '22 at 06:21
  • 1
    By "Colorado Rule", do you just mean "the version of this rule which has been enacted by the state of Colorado", or are you implying that this principle has the appellation "the Colorado Rule"? (The capitalization of "Rule" makes it a bit unclear.) – R.M. Aug 28 '22 at 20:57
  • @TannerSwett maybe by a strict reading of the rules, but in practice, courts generally don't appreciate shenanigans/timewasting/rules abuse. I suspect it would get tossed as being absurd, and the appeals would be denied, technicalities be damned. – mbrig Aug 28 '22 at 21:11
  • 2
    The question doesn't say that the judges are being sued for civil liability. And judges have immunity only for claims arising out of their official duties. – Acccumulation Aug 29 '22 at 02:19
  • @TannerSwett - The rule certainly does not prevent the remaining judge to recuse themselves if they feel that the alleged dispute is, in reality, somehow special casing themselves and that there could be an appearance of them benefitting from eventually ruling one way or another. A more reliable way to force who will hear your case is to lock away all the unwanted judges somewhere where they can't be found till your case is heard. – Jirka Hanika Aug 29 '22 at 13:21
  • @JirkaHanika "A more reliable way to force who will hear your case is to lock away all the unwanted judges somewhere where they can't be found till your case is heard." Maybe in a third-world dictatorship somewhere. This just doesn't happen in civilized countries. – ohwilleke Aug 29 '22 at 16:11
  • Sure. Not even in dictatorships. I just find the wording of Colorado Rule rather flexible for a court to neutralize @TannerSwett's trick (from a previous comment) with full ease. That's all. – Jirka Hanika Aug 29 '22 at 16:55
  • @Acccumulation Fair. But, a situation when criminal claims were brought against all judges would certainly be odd in the extreme relative to the OP's already extreme example, so it at a minimum, we are talking about civil claims although not necessarily for money damages. The unofficial duties claim issue is a trickier one. – ohwilleke Aug 29 '22 at 18:51