When you’re charged with a crime, you expect a fair shake, right? But imagine discovering that the judge presiding over your case previously branded you “corrupt” and championed your prosecution. That’s precisely what Dr. Andrew Dowd confronted when he was tried in front of U.S. District Judge Sydney Stein. Dr. Dowd was convicted at trial and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction—in part on the basis that Judge Stein wasn’t required to recuse himself. That is incorrect.


The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Dowd’s petition asking the Supreme Court to review his case. In our brief we argue that due process is a basic cornerstone of constitutional governance, and an essential element of due process is a fair trial in a fair tribunal. Judges are meant to be impartial referees—akin to referees or umpires. Just as jurors must be impartial, so must judges.

Judge Stein’s public comments blurred the lines between a neutral judge and an active prosecutor. This isn’t just about a judge having an opinion; it’s about whether that opinion so compromises the judge’s neutrality that it undermines the very fairness of the trial.

Our brief highlights historical parallels to underscore the dangers posed by a judiciary overstepping its bounds. The politically charged trials of William Penn in Seventeenth Century England and John Peter Zenger in Colonial New York are both stark reminders of what happens when judges abandon their neutral role.

In today’s hyper partisan environment where the Judiciary has come under increased scrutiny and President Trump has flouted with disregarding court orders, the need for an impartial judiciary remains paramount. Judges must be above the political fray, ready and willing to hold the elected branches accountable when they exceed their constitutional boundaries.

The law is unambiguous: Judge Stein’s public remarks might lead a reasonable observer to question his impartiality, compelling him to disqualify himself. His failure to do so violated Dr. Dowd’s rights.

The Supreme Court should grant Dr. Dowd’s petition and reaffirm the essential principle of judicial impartiality that underpins our entire legal system.