Connection lost
Server error
PERRY v. SCHWARZENEGGER Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A federal judge denied a motion to recuse himself from a prominent same-sex marriage case, holding that his wife’s public advocacy on the issue as head of the ACLU did not create an appearance of partiality or a disqualifying personal interest under federal law.
Legal Significance: This opinion clarifies the judicial recusal standard under 28 U.S.C. § 455, establishing that a spouse’s independent advocacy on a public issue, absent a direct financial or tangible stake in the litigation’s outcome, is not grounds for a judge’s disqualification.
PERRY v. SCHWARZENEGGER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In the appeal of a case challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the defendant-intervenors moved for the recusal of Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. The motion was based on 28 U.S.C. § 455. Proponents argued that Judge Reinhardt’s impartiality could be reasonably questioned (§ 455(a)) because his wife was the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC), an organization that publicly supported same-sex marriage and opposed Proposition 8. They further argued that his wife had an “interest” that could be “substantially affected” by the outcome (§ 455(b)(5)(iii)). The basis for this claim included his wife’s public statements and the ACLU/SC’s activities. These activities included participation in prior state court cases concerning same-sex marriage and, in the underlying district court proceeding of the instant case, joining two amicus briefs and an unsuccessful motion to intervene. The ACLU/SC was not a party to the appeal and had filed no briefs before the Ninth Circuit.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the federal judicial recusal statute require a judge’s disqualification from a case when the judge’s spouse leads an advocacy organization that has publicly supported a particular outcome and had minor, non-party involvement in the lower court proceedings?
No, the judge is not required to recuse himself. The court held Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the federal judicial recusal statute require a judge’s disqualification from a case when the judge’s spouse leads an advocacy organization that has publicly supported a particular outcome and had minor, non-party involvement in the lower court proceedings?
Conclusion
This memorandum sets an important precedent for judicial ethics, affirming that a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation u
Legal Rule
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must recuse if their impartiality Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deseru
Legal Analysis
Judge Reinhardt's analysis distinguished between a spouse's independent views and a disqualifying Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo con
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A judge’s impartiality under § 455(a) is not reasonably questioned by