A Pa. Supreme Court justice recused himself from Philly DA Larry Krasner’s impeachment case

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice has recused himself from weighing in further on Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s impeachment case after disclosing that a lawyer representing Krasner’s opponents had previously worked as the justice’s personal lawyer and on his campaign.

Justice P. Kevin Brobson said in an order late Wednesday that “my recusal from this matter is appropriate.” His decision came two weeks after he’d participated in a hearing at which lawyer Robert Graci — Brobson’s former campaign treasurer — had argued on behalf of the House Republicans leading Krasner’s impeachment drive.

The recusal marks the second time that a justice on the six-member panel has removed himself from considering the high-profile matter. Justice Kevin Dougherty, a Philadelphia Democrat, had previously withdrawn because he authored an opinion in 2022 criticizing Krasner’s office over its handling of a murder case. That opinion is quoted in the articles of impeachment approved by the state House in November 2022.

It was not immediately clear how or whether the new recusal of Brobson, a Dauphin County Republican, might impact the high court’s consideration of the case. During oral arguments last month, Brobson repeatedly asked questions suggesting he was skeptical that the judiciary should have become involved in the matter before it was complete — a stance that would be at odds with Krasner, who has asked the courts to block the ongoing effort to remove him from office because he believes it’s unlawful.

“I’m more interested in the question of not whether we can address the issue, but when,” Brobson said at that hearing while questioning Graci. “When can we look to whether the body ... acted within constitutional lines?”

The high court has not said how quickly it might rule on the matter. Republicans backing the impeachment drive have defended it as legally sound, and are seeking to reverse a Commonwealth Court opinion that mostly sided with Krasner and effectively struck down the matter before it was put to trial in the state Senate.

The seven articles of impeachment against Krasner make a range of accusations, including that Krasner, a Democrat, has fueled the city’s surge in homicides, mishandled criminal cases, and violated the rights of crime victims. The impeachment resolution passed 107-85, almost exclusively along party lines, with one Republican voting against it. Krasner has strenuously denied the allegations.

Brobson’s decision to recuse was not immediate, and the timeline raises some questions about how he reached that position.

On Nov. 28, Brobson was seated on the bench in Harrisburg when Graci — the treasurer of Brobson’s 2021 campaign for the high court — began arguing on behalf of state House Reps. Timothy Bonner and Craig Williams, both Republicans. Graci fielded questions from justices, including Brobson, for about 40 minutes. But neither Graci nor Brobson disclosed their prior history during the proceedings.

Days later, on Dec. 4, Brobson filed paperwork in the case detailing their previous connections, including saying that Graci in 2022 had “represented me in a personal matter that lasted six months.”

Still, in the filing, Brobson said he “was not previously aware of Mr. Graci’s involvement in the [Krasner] case.” And either way, he said, he didn’t believe the circumstances warranted his recusal.

On Tuesday, Krasner’s lawyers filed a motion asking for Brobson to withdraw, saying his “impartiality to decide these consolidated appeals might reasonably be questioned and his disqualification is therefore required.” They said Brobson’s disclosure letter came 55 days after Graci had entered his appearance in the case, and that the letter was “not complete,” including by failing to say whether Graci had charged Brobson for his services while representing him in the personal matter.

Then, late Wednesday, Brobson filed an order saying he had “independently” decided to withdraw from the Krasner case. He did not say why he’d changed his mind — beyond citing rules that allow a judge to recuse over the appearance of impropriety even if withdrawal is not required — and the courts declined to comment further.

Bruce Ledewitz, a Duquesne University law professor, said he did not believe that Brobson’s previous ties to Graci were grounds for an automatic recusal. He said scores of judges and lawyers have past professional ties and that, absent proof of something such as an ongoing financial arrangement, the decision of whether to withdraw in those circumstances is generally a discretionary one for a judge.

“Judges know a lot of attorneys and have relationships with a lot of attorneys,” Ledewitz said. “I don’t think [Brobson] was obligated to recuse.”

Ledewitz also said he didn’t believe Brobson’s apparent change-of-heart would give Krasner any grounds to challenge the court’s handling of the case. “I don’t think this gives Krasner any ammunition to challenge anything,” he said.

The impeachment drive against the city’s DA remains effectively on hold until the high court issues its ruling. And how or whether Krasner is ever put on trial in the state Senate remains an unresolved question that could face more legal challenges if the process moves forward in the legislature.