Federal Judge Recuses Himself From Gaza Case After Trip to Israel

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Calif., on June 12, 2017. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

A federal judge has recused himself from hearing a case brought by Palestinian activists who seek to block the White House’s policy of support of Israel, in a case scheduled months after he joined a group of judges who visited Israel following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, who sits on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, issued a brief order on June 6 to confirm the move. While he disputed arguments from the activists that he should recuse himself, Judge Nelson said that he'll step away from the case “out of an abundance of caution.”

“I find no support for recusal ... appellants rely solely on comments made by others. They cite no comments I have made about any issues related to this case. Thus, it is far from certain that an objective observer would reasonably question my impartiality,” he wrote. “That said, out of an abundance of caution, the best course in this specific case (which may not apply in other cases) is to recuse. I therefore recuse from participation in this case.”

Judge Nelson’s recusal came two days after lawyers for the groups Defense for Children International-Palestine and Al-Haq and their co-plaintiffs moved for his disqualification, citing a trip that Judge Nelson took with 13 other judges to Israel in March. The judge described it as a “judicial education conference.”

“In video footage broadcast by ILTV, Judge Nelson is shown with others touring sites in Israel as part of this ... delegation,” the complaint stated, adding that “judges on the delegation are reported to have met with Israeli ‘government and judicial officials’ and ’members of the Israel Defense Forces.’”

The complaint further alleged that another judge who organized the delegation to Israel “later appeared on a panel alongside Judge Nelson to discuss the trip” and “suggested that by bringing these federal judges, he shared the organizers’ goal of influencing legal opinion in the United States.”

They further argued that the judge, who was appointed during the previous presidential administration, should recuse himself because it would “ensure the appearance of fairness to the parties,” according to their complaint, filed earlier this month.

Those plaintiffs have been seeking an injunction that would block President Joe Biden’s administration from providing support to Israel’s military activity in Gaza. After the Oct. 7 attack, which left about 1,200 civilians dead and resulted in the kidnapping of more than 250 by the terrorist group Hamas, Israel has been embroiled in a war in the territory.

Following Judge Nelson’s recusal, U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan was assigned to hear the case alongside two earlier-assigned judges, U.S. Circuit Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Daniel Bress.

The plaintiffs in the case appealed U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White’s order on Jan. 31 that dismissed their case. At the time, the judge argued that their claims “lie outside the Court’s limited jurisdiction” because the plaintiffs’ challenge is “fraught with serious political questions.”

“There are rare cases in which the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the Court. This is one of those cases,” he wrote. “The Court is bound by precedent and the division of our coordinate branches of government to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this matter ... this Court implores Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.”

The Epoch Times contacted one of the plaintiffs, the Center for Constitutional Rights, for comment on June 7.

A spokesperson for the group, Baher Azmy, told Reuters that the group sought Judge Nelson’s recusal because it “raises questions of supreme importance for our clients and the public, so the appearance of impartiality is of paramount importance.”

At the same time, a White House spokesman said that the Biden administration wants the Israeli government to agree to a three-phase cease-fire agreement. Last week, President Biden said in an address that “indefinite war in pursuit of an unidentified notion of total victory will only bog down Israel in Gaza.”

“The president felt that where we are in this war, where we are in the negotiations to get the hostages out, that it was time for a different approach and a time to make the proposal public, to try to energize the process here and catalyze a different outcome,” White House national security spokesman John Kirby said last week.

But after that plan was made public, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that there would be no “permanent cease-fire” until Hamas is destroyed.

“Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: The destruction of Hamas military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel,” he said in a statement issued on June 1.

“Israel will continue to insist these conditions are met before a permanent cease-fire is put in place. The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent cease-fire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter.”

The case is Defense for Children International-Palestine v. Biden, Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-704.

Reuters contributed to this report.