Elon Musk is demanding a Delaware judge remove herself from ongoing Tesla lawsuits, igniting a fierce dispute over perceived bias. The catalyst? A “like” on LinkedIn – a seemingly small gesture that Musk’s legal team argues reveals a deep-seated prejudice.
The motion for recusal centers on Judge Kathaleen McCormick’s reaction to a post celebrating Musk’s recent $2 billion legal defeat. Attorneys presented a screenshot, arguing this wasn’t an isolated incident but part of a pattern of unfavorable rulings and demonstrated animosity. They point to previous high-stakes cases where McCormick presided over litigation involving Musk.
This conflict unfolds against a backdrop of increasing political friction for Musk. His shift towards supporting Donald Trump in 2024, and subsequent role within the administration, drew intense criticism from some quarters, culminating in protests and even targeted unrest at Tesla locations.
Musk’s lawyers contend McCormick appeared to endorse a lawyer who publicly mocked his legal losses in California. Further fueling the argument, a member of the judge’s staff also reportedly reacted positively to another anti-Musk post related to the current litigation. The legal team characterized these reactions as “inflammatory” and directly relevant to the cases at hand.
Judge McCormick swiftly deactivated her LinkedIn account following the allegations. In a letter to the involved attorneys, she offered a defense, claiming she either didn’t click the “support” icon or did so accidentally, expressing disbelief it was intentional.
This isn’t the first time Musk has publicly questioned McCormick’s impartiality. During the tumultuous battle over his acquisition of Twitter (now X), he testified he felt compelled to complete the deal fearing a biased ruling. He specifically referenced a previous case where McCormick overturned his Tesla option grant, a decision later reversed by the Delaware Supreme Court.
The tension escalated in 2024 when McCormick twice invalidated Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package, citing breaches of fiduciary duty. While the Delaware Supreme Court ultimately reinstated the package, it upheld McCormick’s initial findings, leaving a lingering sense of grievance.
Musk has previously voiced accusations of “absolute corruption” regarding McCormick, linking her past employment at a law firm with donations to former President Joe Biden. These accusations highlight a growing narrative of perceived political motivations influencing legal proceedings.
The dispute took an unexpected turn when Musk and Trump experienced a public falling out over a budget bill, despite earlier collaboration. Despite this disagreement, the two have been observed engaging in conversation at public events, adding another layer of complexity to the situation.
The core of the matter rests on the fundamental principle of judicial impartiality. Musk’s legal team argues McCormick’s actions demonstrate a clear bias, jeopardizing the fairness of the ongoing Tesla lawsuits and demanding her removal from the cases.
