Charles Canady did not publicly disclose his wife ’ s connection to the tribe , and in early 2024 , he voted to uphold the Seminoles ’ deal .
“ It ’ s a huge concern ,” said Bob Jarvis , professor of law at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale . “ It ’ s the same social circles , particularly if you ’ re talking about a town like Tallahassee . It ’ s a very small town — everyone knows everyone else .”
Florida ’ s Supreme Court — unlike the federal judiciary — has adopted the ABA ’ s guidance regarding possible conflicts , requiring justices to disclose information that “ the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification , even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification .”
While the Seminole connection went unreported , Charles Canady faced a barrage of public calls for recusal last winter when another case closely connected to his wife reached Florida ’ s Supreme Court : a constitutional challenge to the state ’ s new law banning abortions after six weeks .
His wife was one of two co-sponsors of the controversial bill .
Charles Canady elected to stay on the case , making no public comments about his wife ’ s connection to it , and then helped the court form a majority in April that ruled his wife ’ s legislation constitutional . The law went into effect May 1 .
“ Justice Canady owes it to the public to be more transparent and more deferential to perception of bias ,” Jarvis said .
Anthony Alfieri , professor of law and director of the University of Miami Center for Ethics and Public Service , said the justice “ should err on the side of disqualification , whether or not there is a real basis for disqualification .”
ProPublica found no evidence the Seminole donation played a role in Charles Canady ’ s ruling . The justice declined multiple requests for comment . Representatives for Jennifer Canady did not respond to requests for comment , either , but the lawmaker — prior to winning office — told the News Service of Florida in 2021 that “ around the dinner table , if something comes up about a pending or impending case , we don ’ t discuss it ever .”
A spokesperson for the Florida Supreme Court said “ considerations of recusal are complex and nuanced — each justice gives careful deliberation to their responsibilities ” in accordance with Florida Supreme Court rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct .
When asked for a list of cases Charles Canady has recused on , the spokesperson said no such list was available .
In a written statement , the Seminole Tribe of Florida said it “ supports numerous candidates with diverse perspectives . It is also involved in multiple legal cases at various levels . Any connection here is purely coincidental .”
Experts caution the perception of bias is likely to be a recurring problem in Florida , with Jennifer Canady now in line to become House speaker in 2028 . That would provide her a large role in crafting every major piece of legislation passing through the Florida House from now through the end of the decade — including controversial laws that will ultimately end up in her husband ’ s court .
She ’ s also expected to solicit sizable campaign contributions from the state ’ s largest corporations , some of which might have cases before the highest court in the state .
Charles Canady was among the dozens of federal and state supreme court judges ProPublica identified who were married to politicians , creating new challenges the country ’ s generations-old ethics rules haven ’ t yet caught up with .
“ Decades ago , it wasn ’ t a problem because women didn ’ t work ,” Jarvis said .
He added that “ it comes down to the good faith of the couple ” to “ be aware , disclose and possibly recuse from cases .” The politicians could reject or return campaign checks from companies with business before the court .
“ GRADING THEIR OWN HOMEWORK ”
Senior Judge John Tunheim , serving the federal district of Minnesota , did not disclose when one of his wife ’ s biggest clients appeared on his docket in 2019 .
Kathy Tunheim is the co-founder and CEO of a large Twin Cities public relations firm , Tunheim , which performed public relations work for the Cargill corporation for several years . During this time , a group of cattle ranchers brought a federal antitrust case against Cargill and other meat producers , alleging a scheme to fix beef prices .
The case was assigned to John Tunheim , who did not recuse .
His annual financial disclosures , obtained through the Free Law Project archive , also did not disclose his wife ’ s role as CEO of the Tunheim firm , instead describing her since 2006 as a “ self-employed public relations consultant .” It ’ s a distinction the judge said was prescribed by the U . S . Courts ’ Committee on Financial Disclosure , which says “ self employed ” is sufficient if the spouse ’ s income is from “ a partnership of which the spouse is a member .” Experts say Tunheim ’ s interpretation of disclosure rules makes identifying possible conflicts challenging .
The judge threw out the cattle ranchers ’ claims several times over the course of the litigation , which has continued into 2024 . One former attorney on the case said a disclosure from Tunheim about his wife ’ s Cargill connection might not have resulted in a request for recusal , but it would have been welcomed , since attorneys cannot weigh those decisions without the information .
Tunheim also heard two Cargill cases in 2018 .
Appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton in 1995 , Tunheim told ProPublica he considered recusing in Cargill cases but concluded it was not necessary based on the same 2009 advisory opinion cited by Wendy Vitter .