Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services
Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al.
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-09778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Judge Vargas denied Cordero’s request that she recuse herself.
Richard Cordero’s request concerned whether Judge Jeannette A. Vargas would continue presiding over his case; the order also addressed the federal defendants’ attorneys and related government counsel.
What happened
In Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Richard Cordero argued that Judge Jeannette A. Vargas should step aside because of her former work for the U.S. Attorney’s Office and her connections with government lawyers.
Judge Vargas explained that a judge must step aside only when an informed, objective observer could reasonably doubt the judge’s impartiality. She said she had not been personally involved in this case while working for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The court’s posted recusal rules also stated that she would recuse from civil matters involving that office within specified circumstances, and the government had reported that this case did not fall within those circumstances.
Judge Vargas also addressed her former colleague and personal friend who appeared in an appeal related to the case, concluding that this relationship alone did not require recusal. Judge Vargas denied Cordero’s recusal application.
The detailed version
- Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services · No. 1:24-cv-09778
- Vargas
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Richard Cordero argued in recent filings that Judge Jeannette A. Vargas should recuse herself, meaning remove herself from the case, because her prior employment and professional relationships created too great a risk of bias. Cordero pointed to Judge Vargas’s 22 years with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where she became deputy chief of the Civil Division before taking the bench in November 2024. He also questioned whether she had a personal relationship with Assistant United States Attorneys involved in the matter.
Recusal standard
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which requires recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court described the applicable test as whether an objective, disinterested observer who knew the underlying facts could have significant doubt that the case would be decided fairly without recusal. The court also stated that recusal is not permitted when the legal standard for disqualification has not been met.
Court’s analysis
Judge Vargas noted that her publicly posted recusal rules state that she will recuse from civil matters in which the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York had involvement on or before November 18, 2024, including matters arising from investigations begun before that date. The government had filed a letter stating that this action did not fall within those recusal rules. Judge Vargas further stated that she had no personal involvement in this matter while working at the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
The court explained that, under Second Circuit law, a judge’s prior employment as government counsel, without more, does not require recusal merely because the government is a defendant. Judge Vargas acknowledged that she had been colleagues with Assistant United States Attorney Rebecca Salk, who appeared for the federal defendants before the court. She also stated that Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin Torrance, who had appeared in an interlocutory appeal from a prior order in the matter, was both a former colleague and a personal friend. The court concluded that a judge need not recuse merely because a friend, even a close friend, appears as a lawyer.
Disposition
The court denied Cordero’s application for recusal. The opinion does not state that the underlying claims in the case were resolved by this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.