Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
HANRAHAN et al. v. HAMPTON et al., 1980 — 446 U.S. 1301 · caselaw · US
General
HANRAHAN et al. v. HAMPTON et al.
446 U.S. 1301·Supreme Court of the United States·1980
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
HANRAHAN et al. v. HAMPTON et al.
No. 79-912.
Decided April 30, 1980
Together with No. 79-914, Johnson et al. v. Hampton et al.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Rehnquist.]
Mr. Justice Rehnquist.
Plaintiffs-respondents and their counsel in these cases have moved that I “be recused from the proceedings in this case” for the reasons stated in their 14-page motion and their five Appendices filed with the Clerk of this Court on April 3, 1980. The motion is opposed by the state-defendant petitioners in the action. Since generally the Court as an institution leaves such motions, even though they be addressed to it, to the decision of the individual Justices to whom they refer, see Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 325 U. S. 897 (1945) (denial of petition for rehearing) (Jackson, J., concurring), I shall treat the motion as addressed to me individually. I have considered the motion, the Appendices, the response of the state defendants, 28 U. S. C. § 455 (1976 ed. and Supp. Ill), and the current American Bar Association Code of Judicial Conduct, and the motion is accordingly
Denied.