The American Bar Association and four other legal groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to say West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin should not have stayed on a case that resulted in a multimillion-dollar verdict against Massey Energy being dismissed.

Massey CEO Donald L. Blankenship spent more than $3 million of his own money to help elect Benjamin, who repeatedly refused to disqualify himself from voting on the Massey case. Two other state Supreme Court justices did step aside for similar reasons in the case.

"Having examined judicial impartiality issues and contributed to the fields of legal and judicial ethics for over 100 years, the ABA believes that the facts and circumstances of this case demonstrate the need for guidance from this Court as to the applicable constraints ... where a party has contributed significantly to the judge's election campaign," states the brief filed by the ABA, the nation's largest group of professional lawyers.

Benjamin cast deciding votes in two 3-2 decisions - one in November and one in April - that overturned the original Boone County jury verdict against Massey for highjacking another operator's coal supply contract with a Pittsburgh steel company.

The verdict, in favor of Harman Mining and its owner Hugh Caperton, was originally $50 million. With interest, it is now more than $76 million.

The controversial case has captured national attention, raising questions about judicial bias and financial corruption. Today, 39 states elect Supreme Court justices.

The ABA argues judicial elections and campaign donations do not inherently violate the "due process" rights of citizens.

But "at some contribution level, fundamental fairness concerns of actual or apparent bias are triggered," the ABA argues in its brief. "This case presents an important opportunity for the [Supreme] Court to clarify the constitutional boundaries that govern the significant and recurring issue of judicial campaign contributions."

In its brief, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law says  "The last decade has seen an explosion in campaign expenditures in judicial elections."

"This case," the Brennan Center argues, "provides the [Supreme] Court with a clean vehicle to address an important constitutional issue and to prevent the facts of this case from becoming harbingers of a new and disturbing norm."

Between 2000 and 2006, state Supreme Court candidates across the United States raised $157 million in contributions, nearly double the contributions raised between 1992 and 1998.

The American Bar Association and four other legal groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to say West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin should not have stayed on a case that resulted in a multimillion-dollar verdict against Massey Energy being dismissed.

Massey CEO Donald L. Blankenship spent more than $3 million of his own money to help elect Benjamin, who repeatedly refused to disqualify himself from voting on the Massey case. Two other state Supreme Court justices did step aside for similar reasons in the case.

"Having examined judicial impartiality issues and contributed to the fields of legal and judicial ethics for over 100 years, the ABA believes that the facts and circumstances of this case demonstrate the need for guidance from this Court as to the applicable constraints ... where a party has contributed significantly to the judge's election campaign," states the brief filed by the ABA, the nation's largest group of professional lawyers.

Benjamin cast deciding votes in two 3-2 decisions - one in November and one in April - that overturned the original Boone County jury verdict against Massey for highjacking another operator's coal supply contract with a Pittsburgh steel company.

The verdict, in favor of Harman Mining and its owner Hugh Caperton, was originally $50 million. With interest, it is now more than $76 million.

The controversial case has captured national attention, raising questions about judicial bias and financial corruption. Today, 39 states elect Supreme Court justices.

The ABA argues judicial elections and campaign donations do not inherently violate the "due process" rights of citizens.

But "at some contribution level, fundamental fairness concerns of actual or apparent bias are triggered," the ABA argues in its brief. "This case presents an important opportunity for the [Supreme] Court to clarify the constitutional boundaries that govern the significant and recurring issue of judicial campaign contributions."

In its brief, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law says  "The last decade has seen an explosion in campaign expenditures in judicial elections."

"This case," the Brennan Center argues, "provides the [Supreme] Court with a clean vehicle to address an important constitutional issue and to prevent the facts of this case from becoming harbingers of a new and disturbing norm."

Between 2000 and 2006, state Supreme Court candidates across the United States raised $157 million in contributions, nearly double the contributions raised between 1992 and 1998.

"Strong correlations between contributions and litigations outcomes" have been established by studies in Texas, Ohio and Louisiana, the Brennan Center brief notes. "Cash from litigants also has a inevitably corrosive effect on public confidence in America's courts....

"The amount of money, the sole interested source of the funds, the timing of the expenditures and the other facts of this case are so egregious," the Brennan brief concludes, "that this case offers the [Supreme] Court the ideal opportunity to offer much needed guidance on one of the most fundamental rights in any system of law."

The Washington Appellate Lawyers Association, based in Bainbridge Island, Wash., and Public Citizen also filed briefs asking the Supreme Court to accept the Harman appeal.

"The prohibition against financially-interested judges is rooted deeply in our legal and cultural heritage," WALA argues in asking the Supreme Court to accept the appeal and determine whether Caperton and Harman "were denied due process by the participation of Justice Benjamin in the decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court."

Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocate group based in Washington, D.C., also asked the Supreme Court to accept the case in order to provide future guidance about "the due process implications of judicial campaign contributions."

The Committee on Economic Development, an independent business-led policy group based in Washington, D.C., also filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to accept Harman's appeal.

Last week, Benjamin filed a 60-page opinion with the state Supreme Court defending his decision not to step down from Massey-related cases.

After the state Supreme Court first voted to overturn the Massey-Harman verdict, Harman's lawyers filed photos of Blankenship and Supreme Court Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard together on the French Riviera. Maynard denied his longtime friendship with Blankenship had anything to do with his vote, but agreed to step down from Massey-related cases. Maynard lost his re-election bid in May.

State Supreme Court Justice Larry Starcher also stepped down from the Massey-Harman case, after Massey lawyers asked him to recuse himself because he had made negative public comments about Blankenship. Last month, Starcher told the Gazette that he did so "to try to finesse Benjamin into having the common sense to recuse himself as well, but he didn't do it."

Reach Paul J. Nyden at pjny...@wvgazette.com or 348-5164.