In the case of Hugh M. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., 2008, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Caperton by a 5-4 vote. The dispute arose when Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Coal Co., contributed $3 million to Brent Benjamin's campaign for a seat on West Virginia's highest court while his company was appealing a $50 million verdict to that same court - which they lost against Harman Mining Corp., owned by Hugh Caperton. After winning the election and joining the bench, Justice Benjamin refused multiple times to recuse himself from hearing Massey’s appeal despite requests due to potential bias given Blankenship's significant financial support during his campaign; he ultimately casted deciding vote in favor of reversing previous verdict against Massey Coal Co.. The Supreme Court held that under these extreme facts it violated Due Process Clause (14th Amendment) for Justice Benjamin not recusing himself as there was serious risk of actual bias based on objective standards.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hugh M. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., argued that there was no constitutional violation because Justice Benjamin did not have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the case and had not been bribed or otherwise improperly influenced to favor one party over another. The dissenters believed that requiring recusal based on campaign contributions could undermine public confidence in judicial elections and lead to an increase in baseless disqualification motions aimed at removing certain judges from cases for strategic reasons rather than legitimate concerns about impartiality. They also expressed concern about creating a standard that is too vague or subjective, which could result in inconsistent application and further erode trust in the judiciary system.