ÿWPC8  &V=j ˆ]âk!¼ÙÁÖ|IFŠO™9• èi€úLUW);˜d-è…üHL”r;,þ½EB=Uaέ!¾z÷#|=¯„ÙUªÖc†QÂzÿ»IbîëTùJ^CÏ*¹ƒJJEÜ÷b¦Ø ä¶6pìX+œh]ToŸ|Ú_)ÿºçh`0’  VÌÙBþgðÍ´rY…#!F U>g %¥ 0(« ^ Ó w@ß 4 3 B mD U:[ [ 0D• bÙ 0 Dá b % b- E5 N7 9 ¼? Pû9K¬„0uJJ9¿¿–øøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøøø BŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ 0 «˜HP LaserJet 4 LOCAL,ü,,,,,ü0<èÀ( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($¡¡éuF*Æ ½¾D¿ÀÁ€ÃDÄÅ€Æê†0*Barô͉3|xÆÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ,°À`   "CG Times Bold(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý- ù-(Ã$òòÚ  Ú*Ú  Úóó- ù-- ù- üÝ ƒ„þß$ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€other€plaintiff„petitioner,€Boston's€Children€First,€is€aÐ ° Ð"self„described€membership€and€advocacy€organization." ²Ý ƒ„þß$ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€district€court€had€denied€petitioners'€previous€motion€forÐ ° Ða€preliminary€injunction.€€òòBoston's€Children€Firstóó€v.€òòCity€ofÐ xÈ ÐBostonóó,€62€F.€Supp.€2d€247,€248€(D.€Mass.€2000)€[hereinafter,Ð @ ÐòòBoston's€Childrenóó,€Denial€of€Preliminary€Injunction]. FÝ ƒ„þß$ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€motion€was€not€filed€until€July26€at€12:20€p.m.,€after€thatÐ ° Ðday's€edition€of€the€Herald€had€been€published,€and€accordinglyÏafter€the€interview€reported€in€that€edition€had€taken€place. /Ý ƒ„þß$ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€in€a€Government€petition€for€mandamus€in€a€criminalÐ ° Ðcase,€these€concerns€have€been€found€less€pressing€because€of€theÏpossibility€that,€absent€the€writ,€double€jeopardy€considerationsÏwill€eliminate€any€avenue€of€appeal.€€òòIn€re€United€Statesóó,€158€F.3dÐ X Ðat€30„31.€€That€is€clearly€not€the€case€here,€in€a€civil€actionÏallowing€the€full€slate€of€appellate€remedies€upon€a€finalÏjudgment. ¢Ý ƒ„þß$ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔWe€have€refused€to€require€recusal€based€on€misrepresentationsÐ ° Ðor€falsehoods€made€by€third€parties,€even€when€such€falsehoods€areÏwidely€reported€and€might€theoretically€cause€the€"appearance€ofÏpartiality."€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€United€Statesóó,€666€F.2d€at€695.€€BecauseÐ X ÐJudge€Ô_ÔGertnerÔ_Ô€has€acknowledged€that€she€made€the€statement€at€issueÏhere,€the€factual€basis€of€the€allegations€is€not€under€challenge.€ÏThe€only€question€here€is€whether€that€basis€is€sufficient€toÏmandate€recusal. Ý ƒ„þß$ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThis€last€argument€is€somewhat€of€a€stretch.€€Attempts€toÐ ° Ðdistinguish€cases€are€basic€litigation€strategy,€and,€in€fact,Ïdefendants€had€already€suggested€this€particular€distinction€inÏearlier€motions.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBoston's€Childrenóó,€Standing€Order,€98Ð X ÐF.€Supp.€2d€at€113.ÌÌ€€€We€also€note€that€petitioners,€in€their€appellate€brief€and€inÏoral€argument,€spent€significant€time€discussing€the€proceduralÏhistory€of€the€case€and€detailing€the€rulings€against€them€whichÏ(in€their€opinion)€are€suggestive€of€bias.€€We€reject€thisÏargument:€not€only€did€Judge€Ô_ÔGertnerÔ_Ô€provide€ample€legal€supportÏfor€every€decision€issued€in€this€case,€but€"judicial€rulings€aloneÏalmost€never€constitute€a€valid€basis€for€a€bias€or€partialityÏmotion....€€Almost€invariably,€they€are€proper€grounds€forÏappeal,€not€for€recusal."€€òòÔ_ÔLitekyÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€510€U.S.€540,Ð  ð  Ð555€(1994).€€This€may€be€true€even€when€the€judicial€rulings€inÏquestion€are€erroneous.€€òòIn€the€Matter€of€Sheffieldóó,€465€So.2d€350,Ð 0€  Ð357€(Ala.€1985). kÝ ƒ„þß$ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔIn€her€memorandum€refusing€recusal,€Judge€Ô_ÔGertnerÔ_Ô€hasÐ ° Ðcharacterized€her€aims€as€explanatory€and€educational.€€òòBoston'sÐ xÈ ÐChildrenóó,€Motion€to€Recuse,€123€F.€Supp.€2d€at€37. /Ý ƒ„þß$ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€five€individual€plaintiffs€who€were€denied€standing€to€sueÐ ° Ðfor€injunctive€relief€have€pursued€an€interlocutory€appeal€which€isÏcurrently€pending€before€this€Court. ŒÝ ƒ„þß$ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔIn€contrast,€myriad€cases€indicate€that€courts€are€loath€toÐ ° Ðrequire€recusal€based€on€statements€made€in€a€judicial€contextÏ(e.g.,€in€a€status€hearing€or€a€decision€rendered€from€the€bench),Ïeven€when€such€statements€might€suggest,€to€some€extent,€pre„¼determination€of€the€merits.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔGrinnellÔ_Ôóó,Ð Ð  Ð384€U.S.€563,€581„82€(1966);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòLð;ðpezóó,€944€F.2d€33,Ð ˜è Ð37€(1st€Cir.€1991). d(J2þß$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X¿öXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€€Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ XoþXXXÔÔ€ °ÿаX XoþÔÑ€ÑÑ8€¿öXXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÙ*ƒ!Ùà@p p ìàUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsˆÐ ° ÐÔ€ „°E„° °ÿÐÔà@ÀÀ ìàFor€the€First€CircuitˆÐ à ÐÌÔ€„Õt„„ „°EÔÔ€X¿öX„„ÕtÔßA€y) °°` dE<_ ` AßÐ ` ° ÐÌÌNos.€00„2430Ìà  à00„2431ÌÌÌà@È È ìàIN€RE:€BOSTON'S€CHILDREN€FIRST,€ET€AL.,ˆÌñÂñà@ìì*ìàñÂññÃñÌñÃñà@@ìì*ìàñ¿ñPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÌñ¿ñˆÌà@$ìàñÁñPetitionersñÁññÀñv.ˆÌÌà@˜ ˜ ìàTHE€CITY€OF€BOSTON,€ET€AL.,ˆÌÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÌñÀññÄñ.ñÄñˆÌÌßA€y) °°` d³E<>` AßÐ ?  ÐÌÌà@ô ô ìàON€PETITION€FOR€A€WRIT€OF€MANDAMUSˆÌÌÌßA€y) °°` d³E<5` AßÐ 6† ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÌÌà@ˆˆìàÔ_ÔTorruellaÔ_Ô,€òòChief€Judgeóó,ˆÐ í ÐÌà@l l ìàÔ_ÔStahlÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔLipezÔ_Ô,€òòCircuit€Judgesóó.ˆÐ -} ÐÌÌßA€y) °°` dE<„` AßÐ …Õ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àòòMichael€Williamsóó,€with€whom€òòChester€Darlingóó€and€òòRobertÐ \¬ ÐÔ_ÔRoughsedgeÔ_Ôóó,€were€on€brief,€for€appellants.Ð $t  Ðà  àòòFrances€S.€Cohenóó,€with€whom€òòÔ_ÔMeritaÔ_Ô€A.€Hopkinsóó,€CorporationÐ ì<! ÐCounsel,€òòDiane€Ô_ÔDiianniÔ_Ôóó,€Special€Assistant€Corporation€Counsel,€òòHillÐ ´" Ð&€Ô_ÔBarlowÔ_Ôóó€and€òòAdam€N.€Lewisóó,€were€on€brief,€for€appellees.Ð |Ì# ÐÌÌßA€y) °°` dàE<Ó!` AßÐ Ô!$& ÐÌñÅñà@,,"ìàñÅññÆñFebruary€5,€2001ñÆñˆÌÌßA€y) °°` d E<:$` AßÐ  ;$‹* ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÙ*!ÙÑ8€¿öXXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òTORRUELLA,€òòChief€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€petition€involves€theÐ ° Ðdifficult€question€of€whether€a€sitting€district€court€judge€shouldÏhave€recused€herself€after€commenting€publicly€on€a€pending€matter.€ÏBecause€we€find€that€it€was,€in€this€case,€an€abuse€of€discretionÏfor€the€judge€not€to€recuse€herself€based€on€an€appearance€ofÏpartiality,€we€grant€the€writ€of€mandamus.€€In€so€doing,€weÏemphasize€that€such€a€grant€in€no€way€indicates€a€finding€of€actualÏbias€or€prejudice,€nor€does€it€suggest€that€the€trial€judgeÏabdicated€any€of€her€ethical€responsibilities.Ìà@””%ìàò òBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ ` Ðà ` àWe€briefly€summarize€the€procedural€history€of€the€caseÏin€order€to€place€the€motion€for€recusal€and€the€petition€for€theÏwrit€of€mandamus€in€context.Ìà ` àPetitioners€filed€suit€challenging€Boston's€elementaryÏschool€student€assignment€process€on€June€21,€1999,€claiming€thatÏthey€had€been€deprived€of€preferred€school€assignments€based€onÏtheir€race,€in€violation€of€state€and€federal€law.€€The€case€wasÏassigned€to€District€Judge€Nancy€Gertner.€€On€May€19,€2000,€theÏdistrict€court€addressed€a€motion€to€dismiss€in€which€defendants€Ïargued€that€"plaintiffs€lack€standing€to€sue€because€they€would€notÏhave€received€their€preferred€school€assignments€anyway,€even€ifÏracial€preferences€were€not€used"€in€the€assignment€formula.€€TheÏdistrict€court€found€that€five€of€the€ten€individual€plaintiffs׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °'#, Ðhad€not€applied€to€change€schools€for€the€1999„2000€school€year,Ð @)$. Ðand€thus€lacked€standing€to€seek€injunctive€relief.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòBoston'sÐ ° ÐChildren€Firstóó€v.€òòCity€of€Bostonóó,€98€F.€Supp.€2d€111,€114€(D.€Mass.Ð @ Ð2000)€[hereinafter€òòBoston's€Childrenóó,€Standing€Order].€€The€courtÐ Ð  Ðallowed€the€remaining€plaintiffs€to€conduct€further€discovery€priorÏto€determining€whether€they€had€standing.€€The€court€found€thatÏbecause€all€of€the€plaintiffs€"may€have€a€claim€for€damages,"€itÏcould€not€dismiss€any€of€the€damages€claims€on€standing€grounds.Ìà ` àPetitioners€also€sought€class€certification.€€In€aÏJune20,€2000€status€conference€the€court€indicated€that€it€wouldÏnot€rule€on€class€certification€until€it€had€received€a€writtenÏmotion€(which€had€not€yet€been€submitted)€that€analyzed€how€theÏalleged€class€complied€with€the€requirements€of€Federal€Rule€ofÏCivil€Procedure€23.€€The€court€also€offered€petitioners€a€choice:Ïit€would€either€rule€on€their€pending€motion€for€a€preliminaryÏinjunction€at€that€time,€despite€the€"relatively€truncated€record,"Ïor€it€would€defer€the€motion€until€further€discovery€had€occurred.€ÏPetitioners€chose€to€conduct€further€discovery,€and€the€motion€forÏa€preliminary€injunction€remains€pending.׃è×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€a€procedural€orderÐ @" Ðdated€June29,€2000,€the€district€court€set€the€course€of€futureÏlitigation:€it€would€allow€further€discovery€on€the€issue€ofÏstanding,€it€would€determine€standing,€and€if€any€of€the€plaintiffsÐ ð#@( Ðhad€standing,€class€discovery€and€a€hearing€with€respect€to€classÏcertification€would€follow.€€òòBoston's€Children€Firstóó€v.€òòCity€ofÐ @ ÐBostonóó,€C.A.€No.€99„11330„NG€(D.€Mass.,€June29,€2000)€(proceduralÐ Ð  Ðorder).Ìà ` àDespite€the€schedule€proposed€in€this€procedural€order,Ïpetitioners€filed€a€motion€for€class€certification€dated€July26,Ï2000.€€The€motion€noted€the€similarity€between€the€present€case€andÏòòMackóó€v.€òòSuffolk€Countyóó,€191€F.R.D.€16€(D.€Mass.€2000),€a€case€inÐ  ð  Ðwhich€class€certification€had€been€granted€òòprioróó€to€the€resolutionÐ 0€  Ðof€standing€issues.€€Also€on€July26,€the€Boston€Herald€printed€anÏarticle€in€which€counsel€for€petitioners€decried€the€districtÏcourt's€failure€to€immediately€certify€a€class.€€Counsel€made€theÏprovocative€claim€that€"[i]f€you€get€strip„searched€in€jail,€youÏget€more€rights€than€a€child€who€is€of€the€wrong€color,"€aÏreference€to€the€facts€of€the€òòMackóó€case.€€Dave€Wedge,€òòLawyer€FightsÐ à ÐSchool€Rulingóó,€Boston€Herald,€July26,€2000,€at€5.€€The€articleÐ  p Ðsaid€that:ÌÓÓà8 ` àAccording€to€[counsel's]€motion,€GertnerÏrefused€to€hear€arguments€to€expand€the€schoolÏsuit€to€a€class€action€because€the€affectedÏstudents€may€no€longer€have€standing€in€theÏcase.€€But€in€the€strip„search€case€[òòMackóó],Ð `"°& ÐGertner€held€just€the€opposite€opinion.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓPÓòòId.óó€€The€article€then€noted€that€"Gertner€could€not€be€reached€forÐ ¸$ ) Ðcomment."€€òòId.óóÐ H&˜!+ Ðà ` àIn€a€July28,€2000€letter€to€the€Herald€(with€copies€sentÏto€both€parties),€Judge€Gertner€responded€to€what€she€viewed€asÏinaccuracies€in€the€July26€article.€€She€noted,€correctly,€thatÏshe€had€not€denied€class€certification,€but€had€postponed€ruling€onÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðclass€certification€until€further€discovery€had€occurred.€€She€alsoÏnoted€that,€as€of€the€date€of€the€reporter's€interview€withÏcounsel,€counsel€for€petitioners€had€not€yet€filed€the€motion€inÏquestion.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€She€included€with€the€letter€a€copy€of€her€proceduralÐ ` ° Ðorder€providing€for€a€hearing€on€class€certification€after€theÏissue€of€standing€had€been€resolved.Ìà ` àOn€August4,€2000,€the€Herald€published€a€follow„upÏarticle,€which,€based€on€a€telephone€interview€with€Judge€Gertner,Ïquoted€her€as€saying:ÌÓÓà8 ` àIn€the€[òòMackóó]€caseòòóó,€there€was€no€issue€as€toÐ À Ðwhether€[the€plaintiffs]€were€injured.€€It€wasÏabsolutely€clear€every€woman€had€a€claim.€ÏThis€is€a€more€complex€case.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÄ ÓDave€Wedge,€òòRace„based€Admissions€Case€To€Be€Heardóó,€Boston€Herald,Ð ¨ø ÐAugust€4,€2000,€at€24.€€It€is€not€entirely€clear€from€the€recordÏwhether€Judge€Gertner€called€the€Herald€reporter,€or€merelyÏreturned€an€outstanding€phone€call,€neither€party€was€made€aware€ofÏher€comments€prior€to€their€August€4€publication.€€òòSeeóó€òòBoston'sÐ è8 ÐChildren€Firstóó€v.€òòCity€of€Bostonóó,€123€F.€Supp.€2d€34,€36€(D.€MassÐ xÈ! Ð2000)€[hereinafter€òòBoston's€Childrenóó,€Motion€to€Recuse]€("[W]henÐ  X# Ðasked€about€the€source€of€counsel's€criticism...€I€noted€thatÏthe€cases€were€different,€the€school€case€'more€complex.'").Ìà ` àBased€on€Judge€Gertner's€comments€as€reported€in€theÏAugust€4€article,€petitioners€then€moved€that€the€judge€recuseÏherself€because€her€"impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned."€Ð Ø'(#- Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð455(a).€€Specifically,€petitioners€claimed€that€the€exÏparte€conversation€between€Judge€Gertner€and€the€Herald€reporter,Ïin€which€she€described€the€current€proceeding€as€"more€complex"Ïthan€òòMackóó,€was€"specifically€proscribed€by€the€Code€of€JudicialÐ ` ° ÐConduct,"€constituted€a€comment€on€the€merits€of€a€pending€motion,Ïand€meant€that€the€court€had€"placed€itself€in€the€apparentÏposition€of€advising€the€defendants."Ìà ` àJudge€Gertner€denied€the€motion.€€òòBoston's€Childrenóó,Ð  ð  ÐMotion€to€Recuse,€123€F.€Supp.€2d€at€36.€€òòóóShe€acknowledged€that€sheÐ 0€  Ðhad€made€the€reported€statements,€characterizing€them€as€attemptsÏto€correct€a€record€suffering€from€gross€misrepresentation€byÏcounsel€for€the€petitioners.€€òòId.óó€€She€noted€that€"[n]othing€in€theÐ à0 ÐCode€of€Judicial€Conduct"€made€such€a€correction€improper;Ïmoreover,€that€it€was€her€"obligation€to€make€certain€that€peopleÏreceive€accurate€information€regarding€the€proceedings€over€whichÏ[she]€preside[s]."€€òòId.óó€at€37.€€As€to€the€specific€comment€aboutÐ  p Ðthe€complexity€of€the€instant€case,€Judge€Gertner€admitted€that€aÏconversation€had€taken€place,€but€said:ÌÓÓà8 ` àMy€comments€in€court,€in€the€myriad€decisionsÏsince€the€inception€of€the€case,€reflectedÏprecisely€that€theme„„that€the€case€raisedÏcomplex€questions€of€standing€and€liability,Ïand€that€it€deserved€careful€and€thoughtfulÏconsideration.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ@*ÓòòId.óó€at€36.€€As€a€result,€Judge€Gertner€concluded€that€she€hadÐ H&˜!+ Ðsimply€complied€with€the€judicial€canon€allowing€judges€to€explainÏ"for€public€information€the€procedures€of€the€court."€€òòId.óó€at€37.Ð h)¸$/ Ðâ âÐ ø*H&1 Ðà@””%ìàò òDISCUSSIONó óˆÐ ° Ðâ âà ` àWe€begin,€as€we€must,€with€the€statute.€€Section€455(a)Ïrequires€"[a]ny€justice,€judge€or€magistrate€of€the€United€StatesÏ[to]€disqualify€himself€in€any€proceeding€in€which€his€impartialityÏmight€reasonably€be€questioned."€€This€statute€seeks€to€balance€twoÏcompeting€policy€considerations:€first,€that€"courts€must€not€onlyÏbe,€but€seem€to€be,€free€of€bias€or€prejudice,"€òòIn€re€UnitedÐ `°  ÐStatesóó,€158€F.3d€26,€30€(1st€Cir.€1998)€(quoting€òòIn€re€UnitedÐ ð@  ÐStatesóó,€666€F.2d€690,€694€(1st€Cir.€1981));€and€second,€the€fearÐ €Ð  Ðthat€recusal€on€demand€would€provide€litigants€with€a€veto€againstÏunwanted€judges,€òòid.óó€€We€have€thus€considered€disqualificationÐ  ð Ðappropriate€only€when€the€charge€is€supported€by€a€factual€basis,׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0€ Ðand€when€the€facts€asserted€"provide€what€an€objective,Ïknowledgeable€member€of€the€public€would€find€to€be€a€reasonableÏbasis€for€doubting€the€judge's€impartiality."€€òòIn€re€United€Statesóó,Ð à0 Ð666€F.2d€at€695.€€Moreover,€we€allow€district€court€judges€a€"rangeÏof€discretion"€in€the€decision€not€to€recuse.€€òòId.óó€€However,€weÐ P  Ðnote€that€the€district€court€should€exercise€that€discretion€withÏthe€understanding€that,€"if€the€question€of€whether€ðð€455(a)Ïrequires€disqualification€is€a€close€one,€the€balance€tips€in€favorÏof€recusal."€€òòNicholsóó€v.€òòAlleyóó,€71€F.3d€347,€352€(10th€Cir.€1995).Ð @$( Ðà ` àMoreover,€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€mandamus€raisesÏadditional€hurdles€for€the€party€seeking€recusal.€€We€have€heldÏthat€at€least€"[w]hen€the€issue€of€partiality€has€been€broadlyÏpublicized,€and€the€claim€of€bias€cannot€be€labeled€as€frivolous,"Ð ` ° ÐòòIn€re€United€Statesóó,€666€F.2d€at€694,€judicial€disqualification€mayÐ ð @ Ðbe€one€of€the€"unusual€situations"€appropriate€for€the€writ,€òòIn€reÐ € Ð  ÐMartnez„Ctalaóó,€129€F.3d€213,€217€(1st€Cir.€1997).€€Even€when€suchÐ `  Ðan€unusual€situation€exists,€however,€we€have€counseled€that€theÏjurisprudence€of€mandamus€requires€that€"an€applicant€for€the€writÏ...€show€both€that€there€is€a€clear€entitlement€to€the€reliefÏrequested,€and€that€irreparable€harm€will€likely€occur€if€the€writÏis€withheld."€€òòIn€re€United€Statesóó,€158€F.3d€at€30€(quoting€òòIn€reÐ à0 ÐCargill,€Inc.óó,€66€F.3d€1256,€1260€n.5€(1st€Cir.€1995)).€€MandamusÐ pÀ Ðthus€requires€"a€case€not€merely€close€to€the€line,€but€clearlyÏover€it."€€òòMartnez„Ctalaóó,€129€F.3d€at€218.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рà Ðà ` àThe€crux€of€petitioner's€complaint€is€that€JudgeÏGertner's€statement€„€that€the€present€case€is€"more€complex"€thanÐ °  ÐòòMackóó€because€in€òòMackóó€"there€was€no€issue€as€to€whether€[theÐ @" Ðplaintiffs]€were€injured"€„€could€be€construed€as€a€comment€on€theÏmerits€of€the€pending€motions€for€preliminary€injunction€and€classÏcertification.€€In€other€words,€by€calling€this€case€"moreÏcomplex,"€Judge€Gertner€arguably€suggested€that€the€petitioner'sÐ €%Ð * Ðclaims€for€certification€and€temporary€injunctive€relief€were€lessÏthan€meritorious;€by€comparing€the€case€(less€than€favorably)€toÏòòMackóó,€Judge€Gertner€signaled€that€relief€was€unlikely€to€beÐ Ð  Ðforthcoming.€€Petitioners€also€argue€that€Gertner's€commentsÏprovided€defendants€with€a€ready„made€argument€with€which€toÏdistinguish€the€instant€case€from€òòMackóó.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Given€that€JudgeÐ € Ð  ÐGertner's€comments€òòcouldóó€be€construed€in€this€context,€petitionersÐ `  Ðargue€that€regardless€of€her€intent,׃ ×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€appearance€of€partialityÐ  ð  Ðcreated€by€her€public€statement€required€her€to€recuse€herselfÏpursuant€to€ðð455(a).Ìà ` à€Although€Canon€3(A)(6)€of€the€Code€of€Judicial€ConductÏinstructs€that€"[a]€judge€should€avoid€public€comment€on€the€meritsÏof€a€pending€or€impending€action,"€it€does€not€extend€thisÏproscription€to€"public€statements€made€in€the€course€of€theÐ P Ðjudge's€official€duties,€to€the€explanation€of€court€procedures,€orÏto€a€scholarly€presentation€made€for€purposes€of€legal€education."€Ï175€F.R.D.€364,€367€(1998).€€The€commentary€to€the€Code€alsoÏ"counsels€that€'particular€care'€be€taken"€if€a€case€from€theÏjudge's€own€court€is€involved,€so€that€the€comment€"does€notÏdenigrate€public€confidence€in€the€integrity€and€impartiality€ofÏthe€judiciary€in€violation€of€Canon€2A."€€òòId.óó€at€370„71.Ð `  Ðà ` àAlthough€the€"goal€sought€to€be€served€by€the€CanonÏinforms€our€analysis,"€we€do€not€decide€the€case€solely€on€thatÏbasis.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòCooleyóó,€1€F.3d€985,€995€n.8€(10th€Cir.Ð À Ð1993).€€First,€it€is€not€at€all€clear€that€Judge€Gertner€wasÏcommenting€on€the€merits€of€petitioner's€motion.€€She€understoodÏher€own€comments€as€entirely€ethical€explanations€of€the€reasonsÏbehind€court€procedures.€€Judge€Gertner€felt,€reasonably,€that€suchÏexplanation€was€warranted€given€the€likelihood€that€the€Herald'sÏreaders€would€misunderstand€the€procedurally€complex€issues€ofÏstanding€and€class€certification€„€issues€particularly€difficultÏfor€those€not€legally€trained.€€òòSeeóó€òòBoston's€Childrenóó,€Motion€toÐ @" ÐRecuse,€123€F.€Supp.€2d€at€37€("Rather,€I€chose€to€correct€theÏrecord.€€Nothing€in€the€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct€suggests€that€IÏmay€not€do€so.").€€Second,€both€this€Court€and€other€courts€haveÏindicated€that€the€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct€does€not€overlapÏperfectly€with€ðð455(a):€it€is€possible€to€violate€the€Code€withoutÏcreating€an€appearance€of€partiality;€likewise,€it€is€possible€forÏa€judge€to€comply€with€the€Code€yet€still€be€required€to€recuseÏherself.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Cargillóó,€66€F.3d€at€1262€n.5€(not€deciding€theÐ À+'2 Ðpoint,€but€noting€the€"strong€argument"€that€"not€all€instances€ofÏnoncompliance"€with€the€Code€require€automatic€disqualification);Ð @ ÐòòIn€re€Barryóó,€946€F.2d€913,€914€(D.C.€Cir.€1991)€(per€curiam).€€òòButÐ Ð  Ðseeóó€òòid.óó€at€916€(Edwards,€J.,€dissenting)€(suggesting€that€breach€ofÐ ` ° Ðthis€canon€"will€almost€always€give€rise€to€a€legitimate€claim€forÏdisqualification€under€section€455(a)").€€Third,€we€must€considerÏthe€comments€in€the€context€in€which€they€were€issued:€as€aÏresponse€to€statements€by€counsel€that€were,€at€minimum,Ïprovocative€attempts€to€influence€public€opinion,€and€that€couldÏhave€been€considered€misrepresentations€that€potentially€violatedÏprofessional€ethics.€€òòCf.óó€òòTown€of€Norfolkóó€v.€òòU.S.€Army€Corps€ofÐ P  ÐEng'rsóó,€968€F.2d€1438,€1460€(noting€importance€of€context€ofÐ à0 Ðstatements,€both€within€the€course€of€individual€litigation€andÏwith€reference€to€the€history€of€underlying€subject€matter).Ìà ` àWe€have€little€guidance€on€when€public€comments,€evenÏthose€on€the€merits€of€a€pending€action,€create€an€appearance€ofÏpartiality€for€which€ðð455(a)€recusal€is€the€appropriate€remedy.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °  ÐJudges€are€generally€loath€to€discuss€pending€proceedings€with€theÏmedia,€even€when€litigants€may€have€engaged€in€misrepresentation.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòCooleyóó,€1€F.3d€at€995€("[Discussing€the€case€with€the€media]Ð `"°& Ðwas€an€unusual€thing€for€a€judge€to€do.").€€Thus€few€reported€casesÏdeal€with€recusal€on€this€basis.€€The€Tenth€Circuit€òòóóhas€provided€atÐ €%Ð * Ðleast€one€example€of€when€media€contact€mandated€judicialÏdisqualification.€€In€òòCooleyóó,€a€federal€district€judge€who€hadÐ @ Ðissued€a€preliminary€injunction€preventing€abortion€protesters€fromÏblocking€a€Kansas€clinic€"became€'adamant€and€vocal'€in€statingÏthat€his€order€was€going€to€be€obeyed"€upon€learning€thatÏprotesters€intended€to€willfully€violate€his€orders.€€òòId.óó€at€988.€Ð € Ð  ÐAs€part€of€his€"campaign"€to€ensure€that€his€orders€would€beÏenforced,€the€judge€appeared€on€"Nightline,"€where€he€stated€thatÏ"these€people€are€breaking€the€law."€€òòId.óó€at€990.€€Five€defendantsÐ 0€  Ðarrested€for€blocking€access€to€the€clinic€sought€recusal€of€theÏdistrict€court€judge,€which€he€refused€to€grant.Ìà ` àThe€Tenth€Circuit€noted€that,€in€refusing€to€grant€theÏmotion€for€recusal,€the€district€court€had€maintained€that€it€"knewÏnothing€about€the€facts€of€[the€defendants']€cases,€and€had€noÏpredisposition€as€to€their€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€charges."€€òòId.óóÐ à Ðat€995.€€The€court€of€appeals€saw€no€reason€to€find€otherwise.€€òòId.óóÐ  p Ðat€996€("[T]he€record€of€the€proceedings€below...€discloses€noÏbias.€€To€the€contrary,€it€appears€that€the€district€judge€wasÏcourteous€to€the€defendants€and€sedulously€protected€theirÏrights.").€€But€the€court€continued€to€explain€why€recusal€wasÏnecessary€nonetheless:ÌÓÓà8 ` à€€€ðð455(a)€asks€a€broader€question€which,€onÏthese€facts,€makes€it€impossible€to€take€theseÏcases€out€of€context....Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à€€€Two€messages€were€conveyed€by€the€judge'sÏappearance€on€national€television€in€the€midstÏof€these€events.€€One€message€consisted€of€theÏwords€actually€spoken€regarding€theÏprotesters'€apparent€plan€to€bar€access€to€theÏclinics,€and€the€judge's€resolve€to€see€hisÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðorder€prohibiting€such€actions€enforced.€€TheÏother€was€the€judge's€expressive€conduct€inÏdeliberately€making€the€choice€to€appear€inÏsuch€a€forum€at€a€sensitive€time€to€deliverÏstrong€views€on€matters€which€were€likely€toÏbe€ongoing€before€him.€€Together,€theseÏmessages€unmistakenly€conveyed€an€uncommonÏinterest€and€degree€of€personal€involvement€inÏthe€subject€matter.€€It€was€an€unusual€thingÏfor€a€judge€to€do,€and€it€unavoidably€createdÏthe€appearance€that€the€judge€had€become€anÏactive€participant€in€bringing€law€and€orderÏto€bear€on€the€protesters,€rather€thanÏremaining€as€a€detached€adjudicator.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à€€€We€conclude€that€at€least€after€the€judge'sÏvolunteer€appearance€on€national€television€toÏstate€his€views€regarding€the€ongoingÏprotests,€the€protesters,€and€hisÏdetermination€that€his€injunction€was€going€toÏbe€obeyed,€a€reasonable€person€would€harbor€aÏjustified€doubt€as€to€his€impartiality€in€theÏcase€involving€these€defendants.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ“QÓòòId.óó€at€995.Ð pÀ Ðà ` àAlthough€the€media€contact€in€this€case€was€lessÏinflammatory€than€that€in€òòCooleyóó,€we€see€the€same€factors€at€work,Ð à Ðalbeit€on€a€smaller€scale.€€First,€the€Boston€school€assignmentÏprogram€is€a€matter€of€significant€local€concern,€generating€atÏleast€two€prominent€articles€in€the€Boston€Herald.€€Judge€GertnerÏviewed€this€prominence€as€all€the€more€reason€to€correctÏmisrepresentations€by€petitioners'€counsel.€€However,€òòCooleyóóÐ `"°& Ðcounsels€that€in€newsworthy€cases€where€tensions€may€be€high,Ïjudges€should€be€particularly€cautious€about€commenting€on€pendingÏlitigation.€€Interested€members€of€the€public€might€well€considerÏJudge€Gertner's€actions€€as€expressing€an€undue€degree€of€interestÏin€the€case,€and€thus€pay€special€attention€to€the€language€of€herÏcomments.€€With€such€public€attention€to€a€matter,€even€ambiguousÐ À+'2 Ðcomments€may€create€the€appearance€of€impropriety€that€ðð455(a)€isÏdesigned€to€address.€€In€fact,€the€very€rarity€of€such€publicÏstatements,€and€the€ease€with€which€they€may€be€avoided,€make€itÏmore€likely€that€a€reasonable€person€will€interpret€such€statementsÏas€evidence€of€bias.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Allied€Signal€Inc.óó,€891€F.2d€967,Ð ð @ Ð971€(1st€Cir.€1989)€("[O]ther€things€being€equal,€the€more€commonÏa€potentially€biasing€circumstance€and€the€less€easily€avoidable€itÏseems,€the€less€that€circumstance€will€appear€to€a€knowledgeableÏobserver€as€a€sign€of€partiality.").Ìà ` àSecond,€the€"appearance€of€partiality"€at€issue€here,€asÏin€òòCooleyóó,€stems€from€the€real€possibility€that€a€judge'sÐ P  Ðstatements€may€be€misinterpreted€because€of€the€ambiguity€of€thoseÏstatements.€€In€both€cases,€the€judge's€public€comments€couldÏeasily€be€characterized€as€legitimate€efforts€to€explain€operativeÏlaw.€€For€example,€the€judge€in€òòCooleyóó€could€be€understood€merelyÐ à Ðas€reminding€potential€law„breakers€of€the€binding€nature€of€aÏjudicial€order,€and€the€potential€for€punishment€that€may€accrueÏupon€its€violation.€€Similarly,€Judge€Gertner's€comments€can€beÏunderstood€as€a€reflection€of€language€in€her€prior€orders,€i.e.,Ïthat€class€certification€could€not€yet€issue€because€the€standingÏquestions€were€more€difficult€("more€complex")€than€those€in€òòMackóó.€Ð ð#@( ÐStill,€in€both€cases€the€comments€were€sufficiently€open€toÏmisinterpretation€so€as€to€create€the€appearance€of€partiality,Ïeven€when€no€actual€prejudice€or€bias€existed.€€In€òòCooleyóó,€aÐ  (ð#. Ðreasonable€person€might€interpret€the€comments€as€an€affirmativeÏeffort€to€enforce€the€law,€and€an€indication€that€a€guilty€verdictÐ À+'2 Ðwould€be€forthcoming.€€Here,€a€reasonable€person€might€interpretÏJudge€Gertner's€comments€as€a€preview€of€a€ruling€on€the€merits€ofÏpetitioner's€motion€for€class€certification,€despite€the€fact€thatÏdefendants€had€not€yet€filed€a€response€to€that€motion.Ìà ` àAlthough€the€Tenth€Circuit€based€its€finding€in€òòCooleyóó€onÐ ð @ Ðthe€district€judge's€"active€participa[tion]€in€bringing€law€andÏorder€to€bear€on€the€protesters,"€other€courts€have€agreed€thatÏunder€some€circumstances€ñ½ñañ½ññ¾ññ¶ñtheñ¶ññ¾ñ€judge's€defense€of€her€own€orders,€priorÏto€the€resolution€of€appeal,€may€create€the€appearance€ofÏpartiality.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBroadmanóó€v.€òòComm'n€on€Judicial€Performanceóó,Ð À Ð18€Cal.€4th€1079,€1104€(Cal.€1998)€("By€making€public€comments€inÏan€attempt€to€justify€and€defend€his€decisions€while€thoseÏdecisions€were€pending€on€appeal,€petitioner€adopted€the€role€of€anÏadvocate.€€Such€actions€would€appear€to€an€objective€observer€to€beÏ'prejudicial€to€public€esteem€for€the€judicial€office.'").€€To€theÏextent€that€Judge€Gertner's€comments€might€be€interpreted€as€aÏdefense€of€her€procedural€approach€to€this€litigation,€thisÏproscription€is€well€taken.€€òòóóWe€believe€that€this€appearance€ofÐ @" Ðpartiality€created€by€defense€of€a€judge's€own€orders€is€equallyÏ(if€not€more)€troubling€in€the€midst€of€litigation€than€when€a€caseÏis€remanded€to€a€judge€upon€appeal.Ìà ` àThe€fact€that€Judge€Gertner's€comments€were€made€inÏresponse€to€what€could€be€characterized€as€an€attack€by€counsel€onÏthe€procedures€of€her€court€did€not€justify€any€comment€by€JudgeÏGertner€beyond€an€explanation€of€those€procedures.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€reÐ 0*€%0 ÐConardóó,€944€S.W.2d€191€(Mo.€1997)€(holding€that€a€statement€as€toÐ À+'2 Ðcharges€possible€against€potential€defendant€"reflected€a€pre„¼judging€of€the€merits€of€criminal€charges€that€might€have€beenÏfiled...€[and]€was€not€justified€by€the€attacks€[on€theÏcourt]");€òòSheffieldóó,€465€So.2d€at€354€(concerning€a€judicialÐ ` ° Ðresponse€to€a€letter,€criticizing€the€court,€which€appeared€to€haveÏbeen€"unfounded€and€factually€incorrect").€€Whether€counsel€forÏpetitioners€misrepresented€the€facts€or€not€is€irrelevant:€theÏissue€here€is€whether€a€reasonable€person€could€have€interpretedÏJudge€Gertner's€comments€as€doing€more€than€correcting€thoseÏmisrepresentations€and€creating€an€appearance€of€partiality.€€WeÏfeel€that,€on€these€facts,€a€reasonable€person€could€do€so.Ìà ` àAgain,€we€underscore€that€this€ruling€in€no€way€intimatesÏany€actual€bias€or€prejudice€on€the€part€of€Judge€Gertner.€€òòSeeóó€òòInÐ pÀ Ðre€Sch.€Asbestos€Lit.óó,€977€F.2d€764,€782€(3d€Cir.€1992).€€"TheÐ P Ðproblem,€however,€is€that€regardless€of€[a€judge's]€actualÏimpartiality,€a€reasonable€person€might€perceive€bias€to€exist,€andÏthis€cannot€be€permitted."€€òòId.óó€€"Such€a€stringent€rule€mayÐ °  Ðsometimes€bar€trial€by€judges€who€have€no€actual€bias€and€who€wouldÏdo€their€best€to€weigh€the€scales€of€justice€equally€betweenÏcontending€parties."€€òòIn€re€Murchisonóó,€349€U.S.€133,€136€(1955).€Ð `"°& ÐWe€have€every€confidence€that€Judge€Gertner€is€one€such€judge.€Ï"But€to€perform€its€high€function€in€the€best€way,€'justice€mustÏsatisfy€the€appearance€of€justice,'"€òòid.óó,€and€thus€we€must€grantÐ '`", Ðthe€writ.Ìà ` àò òWrit€of€mandamus€granted.ó óÐ 0*€%0 Ð