Federal ethics rules require all federal employees, including administrative law judges (ALJs), to recuse themselves from an official matter due to a financial conflict of interest under 18 USC § 208, a relationship with a party or their representative under 5 CFR 2635.502, or when participation in a matter gives the appearance of a lack of impartiality, see 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(8), (b)(14), and 2635.502(a)(2). ALJs considering recusal under these ethics rules may seek fact-specific guidance from an agency ethics attorney by emailing ^OGC Ethics Questions. An ethics attorney will then advise on whether the ethics rules require recusal from the case.

Under 20 CFR 404.940 and 416.1440, an administrative law judge (ALJ) must also disqualify or recuse themself from adjudicating a case if the ALJ: (1) is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party, or (2) has any interest in the matter pending for decision. An interest in the matter pending for decision generally refers to a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the case.

Although our program rules do not require it, an ALJ may withdraw from a case if the ALJ's participation in the case would give an appearance of impropriety. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the ALJ's honesty, integrity, objectivity, temperament, or fitness to serve as an ALJ is impaired.

However, disqualification is not a matter of personal preference or reluctance to handle a particular case and must only occur when it is necessary. An ALJ must have reasonable and proper grounds for disqualifying themself.

If a claimant objects to the ALJ assigned to their case, they must do so at the earliest opportunity. The ALJ will consider the objection and timely determine whether to proceed or withdraw.

If the ALJ decides disqualification is appropriate, the above procedures in subsection B apply.

When sufficient time and facts allow an ALJ to decide before the hearing that the claimant's reasons for objecting do not warrant disqualification, the ALJ will set forth in writing the reason(s) disqualification is not warranted, send the writing to the claimant and appointed representative (if any), associate the writing with the record, and reiterate that decision in the opening statement at the hearing. If there is insufficient time before the hearing for the ALJ to respond or to obtain information necessary to decide the issue, the ALJ may obtain any needed information at the hearing and set forth the reason(s) for their decision regarding disqualification on the record during the hearing.

If the claimant objects at the hearing to the assigned ALJ and the ALJ declines at the hearing to disqualify themself, the ALJ will set forth the reason(s) for their decision on disqualification on the record during the hearing.

If the claimant objects to the assigned ALJ after the hearing but before the decision is issued and the ALJ decides that the claimant's reasons for objecting do not warrant disqualification, the ALJ will set forth the reason(s) for the decision on disqualification in the jurisdiction and procedural history section of the hearing decision.

When an ALJ is assigned to conduct a hearing in a case in which another ALJ has disqualified themself and the claimant is aware of the disqualification of the first ALJ, the newly assigned ALJ must mention the disqualification as part of the procedural history in their opening statement at the hearing. However, the ALJ need not discuss the reasons for the disqualification.