I was reading the Securities Docket daily update this morning and came across a story that felt both modern and inevitable. Counsel for Elon Musk and Tesla are reportedly seeking to disqualify Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick after her LinkedIn account appeared to “like” or “support” a post celebrating Musk’s recent legal defeat in a separate California matter.
Interestingly… Securities Docket ran a poll on the issue. The results were decisive. Approximately 85% of respondents said the judge should recuse, while only 15% disagreed.
I understand the instinct behind that result. Judges are expected to operate above the noise, and even a small digital signal can raise legitimate concerns about impartiality. That said, when you step into the actual doctrine governing judicial recusal, the analysis becomes more disciplined, and the likely outcome becomes clearer. […]
Where This Likely Lands
Looking across Delaware precedent, federal doctrine, and how courts have treated comparable situations, the most likely outcome is that recusal is denied.
The court may address the issue directly, acknowledge that the social media interaction was ill-advised, and clarify the absence of any bias affecting the pending matters. That would be consistent with how courts have handled borderline appearance issues that do not rise to the level of disqualifying partiality.
A different result would likely require additional facts. Evidence of intentional endorsement, repeated conduct reflecting hostility toward a party, private communications, or some closer nexus between the online activity and the issues before the court could change the analysis. On the current record, that showing does not appear to be present.
Source: A LinkedIn “Like,” Judicial Recusal, and the Limits of Appearance — Anderson Insights
