What is the legal test for recusal of a federal judge?

Recusal of federal judges is governed by 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455. Under Section 144, a party must show "personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party[.]" 28 U.S.C. 144. Under Section 455, "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. 455(a). Under both statutes, the standard for recusal is "whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984). "The reasonable person is not someone who is hypersensitive or unduly suspicious, but rather is a well-informed, thoughtful observer." U.S. v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While it is "important that judges be and appear to be impartial," it is "also important . . . that judges not recuse themselves unless required to do so, or it would be too easy for those who seek judges favorable to their case to

Page 5

disqualify those that they perceive to be unsympathetic merely by publicly questioning their impartiality." Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 909, 916 (9th Cir. 2011).