> Any ownership required the Judge to recluse himself.
Where does this requirement come from? Citation please.
Where does this requirement come from? Citation please.
The apple insider article.
So, most judges? I assume they tend to be high net worth individuals, so it's very likely they own APPL in some capacity in their stock portfolios and/or retirement funds.
> (C) Disqualification.
> (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
> …
> (c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
The interesting (IMO) tidbit here is the “knowledge” aspect of the canon. Presumably the Judge was unaware of their investment (rather than unaware of their ethical obligations) and, by my reading at least, where they had no knowledge of their financial interest they had no obligation to recuse. Although I do think it’s reasonable to expect Judges to conduct a conflicts check prior to hearing a case that would involve making themselves aware of any interest they might have in the public companies appearing before them.
[1] https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-unit...