Rippo v. Baker

Michael Damon Rippo was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Nevada. His trial judge, Jack Lehman, was simultaneously the subject of a state investigation—initiated partly due to information Rippo had provided to the FBI concerning judicial corruption. The same district attorney’s office prosecuting Rippo was involved in investigating Judge Lehman. Rippo moved for the judge’s recusal, but the motion was denied, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Rippo had not proven actual bias. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and, in a per curiam opinion issued on March 6, 2017, vacated the judgment. It held that Nevada applied the wrong legal standard; under the Due Process Clause, recusal is required not only when actual bias is proven, but also when the probability of bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the proper due process recusal standard.

Whether the Nevada Supreme Court erred by requiring a showing of actual judicial bias, instead of applying the correct constitutional standard that demands recusal when there is an unconstitutionally high probability of bias.

The decision reinforced the constitutional guarantee of a fair tribunal by clarifying that the appearance of bias and the objective risk of partiality mandate judicial recusal under the Due Process Clause. It impacted how state courts evaluate recusal motions, especially when judges face investigations connected to prosecuting offices.