Appearance of Impropriety

The standard in this state—and, I would expect, in most others—is not whether a judge is actually biased. It is whether the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The appearance matters as much as the reality.

Years ago, when I worked for a judge, he had a small claims case in front of him. Not much money was at stake. It was a dispute over a vehicle purchased from a large dealership.

The judge sometimes had his own car serviced at that dealership. The mechanic who worked on his car had nothing to do with the case, and there was no real conflict. But to be on the safe side, the judge removed himself, and the case was reassigned to a different judge.

He did not want either side walking out of that courtroom wondering whether where he got his oil changed had influenced the outcome.

That is how the system is supposed to work. People who come before a court should be confident that their judge has no connection — no matter how small — to anyone involved in their case.

The Supreme Court

Which brings me to the United States Supreme Court.

Since 2023, reporting has documented that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted substantial undisclosed gifts and travel from a wealthy political donor, and similar questions have been raised about other justices. Regardless of how one feels about Justice Thomas, or whether one agrees with his decisions, conduct like this undermines public respect for the Supreme Court — and because it is the highest court in the country, for every other court as well.

The numbers bear that out. In July 2026, Gallup measured Supreme Court approval at 33 percent, the lowest in the 26 years it has asked the question, with a record 61 percent of Americans disapproving.

To its credit, the Court has taken some steps. It adopted its first written code of conduct in November 2023 and, in February 2026, announced automated recusal checks and revisions to its rules. Those are real improvements. But the code still carries no enforcement mechanism, and each justice remains the sole judge of when he or she must step aside.

The point?

My old boss gave up a small claims case over a car repair. He did not have to. In all likelihood, no one would ever have noticed. He did it because the appearance of a connection was enough.

People will not always agree with Supreme Court decisions. That is fine, that is how courts work. But they need to be confident that the justices are not deciding cases based on personal connections. Otherwise the Court will keep losing the very trust it depends on.