Legal Definitions - rule of necessity

The rule of necessity is a legal principle that allows a judge or other public official to participate in a decision or case, even if they have a personal bias or a conflict of interest that would normally require them to step aside. This rule applies only in very specific and rare circumstances: when no other qualified individual or body exists to hear the case or make the decision. Without applying the rule of necessity, the matter would be unable to proceed, leading to a legal or governmental paralysis.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Small Town Council Budget Approval: Imagine a very small town where the town council is responsible for approving the annual budget. A proposal comes before the council to increase property taxes to fund essential services like road repairs and the local school. Every single member of the five-person town council owns property in the town, meaning they all have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the vote (a potential conflict of interest).

  Normally, a council member with a conflict of interest would recuse themselves. However, if all five members recused themselves, there would be no one left to vote on the budget. The town would be unable to approve its essential funding, leading to a breakdown of local government services. Under the rule of necessity, the council members would be required to vote despite their personal interest, because there is no other competent body to make this critical decision.

• Specialized Regulatory Board: Consider a highly specialized national regulatory board responsible for overseeing a unique and complex industry, such as advanced satellite communications. This board consists of only three members, all of whom are leading experts in this niche field. A critical case arises concerning a new technology that could revolutionize the industry, but it also involves a company in which all three board members previously held minor, non-controlling stock options (a potential conflict of interest).

  In a typical scenario, these board members would be disqualified due to their financial interest. However, if they were all disqualified, there would be no other individuals in the country with the necessary expertise and legal authority to sit on this specialized board and adjudicate this highly technical matter. The rule of necessity would compel them to hear the case to prevent a regulatory vacuum and ensure the industry can continue to operate under proper oversight.

• State Public Utilities Commission: A state's Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is composed of five commissioners and is the sole authority for setting electricity rates. A major statewide power outage occurs, and the PUC must immediately investigate the cause and approve emergency measures, including temporary rate adjustments to cover repair costs. It is later discovered that all five commissioners, like most residents, were personally affected by the outage (e.g., lost power at their homes), which could be seen as a personal interest or bias in the investigation's outcome.

  While their personal experience with the outage might create a perceived bias, if all five commissioners were to recuse themselves, there would be no other body or individuals legally empowered to investigate the outage, approve emergency utility actions, or set electricity rates for the state. The rule of necessity would require them to proceed with their duties to ensure the state's essential utility services can be restored and regulated, as their disqualification would leave a critical governmental function unfulfilled.