Elon Musk filed a motion Wednesday demanding that Delaware Court of Chancery Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick recuse herself from Tesla shareholder litigation, alleging the judge recently demonstrated bias against him by liking a social media post celebrating his $2 billion court loss in a separate case.
Musk's attorneys included a screenshot of McCormick's LinkedIn account liking a post from a lawyer who mocked Musk's legal defeat in a California fraud case. The motion notes the incident 'does not exist a vacuum' given the judge's prior involvement in high-stakes cases involving Musk. McCormick later deactivated her LinkedIn account and denied supporting the anti-Musk post in a letter to attorneys.
The motion comes as McCormick presides over derivative litigation brought by Tesla shareholders who allege Musk harmed the company by overpaying himself and board members. The judge's staff also allegedly liked another anti-Musk post related to pending litigation, according to the filing.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressives and Democratic critics have long targeted Musk's expanding political influence, particularly since he became a close ally of President Donald Trump and headed the Department of Government Efficiency in 2025. Liberal lawmakers condemned DOGE efforts in protests, and Tesla locations were targeted by critics who characterized Musk as an unelected billionaire wielding White House power.
On the recusal motion, progressive legal observers note that Musk has a pattern of attacking judges who rule against him. Critics argue the motion appears designed to delay accountability in the shareholder derivative case rather than address legitimate judicial concerns. Some progressive commentators have noted that McCormick's prior rulings in Tesla cases were upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court, suggesting her decisions were grounded in law rather than bias.
Additionally, some progressive voices point to Musk's public attacks on judges, including his 2024 X post calling McCormick 'absolute corruption' after a conservative influencer noted her prior work at a Delaware law firm that donated to former President Joe Biden. Critics argue Musk's pattern of personal attacks on jurists undermines his claims of judicial bias.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservatives and Musk supporters argue the judge liking anti-Musk posts presents a clear appearance of bias that warrants recusal. They note that McCormick's LinkedIn activity, if verified, demonstrates she may have prejudged facts at issue in pending litigation.
Right-leaning legal commentators argue that regardless of political context, a judge participating in social media discussions about ongoing cases raises serious due process concerns. They point to Musk's history with McCormick, including her 2022 ruling in the Twitter acquisition case and her 2024 decisions voiding his Tesla pay package as evidence of an adversarial relationship.
Supporters argue Musk is entitled to a fair tribunal and that the appearance of bias, particularly from a judge presiding over consequential corporate governance litigation, justifies serious consideration of recusal. They note that even McCormick's denial — in which she said she 'either did not click the support icon at all, or I did so accidentally' — acknowledges uncertainty about her own actions.
What the Numbers Show
The recusal motion references multiple legal proceedings involving Musk and McCormick. In 2022, McCormick presided over Twitter's lawsuit against Musk to force completion of his $44 billion acquisition. Musk ultimately completed the acquisition after the judge ruled against him.
In 2024, McCormick twice voided a multibillion-dollar Tesla pay package for Musk and the board, ruling they breached fiduciary duties. The Delaware Supreme Court later reinstated the pay package but upheld McCormick's underlying findings of breach.
The current derivative litigation involves shareholder claims that Musk harmed Tesla by overpaying himself. McCormick's LinkedIn like targeted a post celebrating a $2 billion judgment against Musk in a separate California fraud case.
The Bottom Line
The recusal motion presents a judge with a difficult procedural decision that could significantly impact pending Tesla litigation. If McCormick grants the motion, it would delay the derivative case and require a new judge to get acquainted with complex corporate governance issues. If she denies it, Musk will likely appeal, further extending the legal battle.
The core factual dispute — whether McCormick actually liked the anti-Musk post — may be difficult to resolve given her deleted LinkedIn account and ambiguous denial. Legal experts say recusal motions based on social media activity are rare but not unprecedented, and courts generally look at whether a reasonable observer would question the judge's impartiality.
What to watch: Whether McCormick rules on the recusal motion quickly, how the Delaware Supreme Court might respond to any appeal, and whether this additional legal front affects investor confidence in Tesla's governance structure.