A Deeper Dive on Elon Musk's Request to Recuse a Judge Who "Liked" LinkedIn Post Cheering His Defeat in Unrelated Case

A LinkedIn “Like,” Judicial Recusal, and the Limits of Appearance

I was reading the Securities Docket daily update this morning and came across a story that felt both modern and inevitable. Counsel for Elon Musk and Tesla are reportedly seeking to disqualify Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick after her LinkedIn account appeared to “like” or “support” a post celebrating Musk’s recent legal defeat in a separate California matter.

Interestingly… Securities Docket ran a poll on the issue. The results were decisive. Approximately 85% of respondents said the judge should recuse, while only 15% disagreed.

I understand the instinct behind that result. Judges are expected to operate above the noise, and even a small digital signal can raise legitimate concerns about impartiality. That said, when you step into the actual doctrine governing judicial recusal, the analysis becomes more disciplined, and the likely outcome becomes clearer. […]

Where This Likely Lands

Looking across Delaware precedent, federal doctrine, and how courts have treated comparable situations, the most likely outcome is that recusal is denied.
The court may address the issue directly, acknowledge that the social media interaction was ill-advised, and clarify the absence of any bias affecting the pending matters. That would be consistent with how courts have handled borderline appearance issues that do not rise to the level of disqualifying partiality.

A different result would likely require additional facts. Evidence of intentional endorsement, repeated conduct reflecting hostility toward a party, private communications, or some closer nexus between the online activity and the issues before the court could change the analysis. On the current record, that showing does not appear to be present.

From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets

In the hours before the February 28, 2026 U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran—one of the most closely guarded military operations in recent history—six newly created Polymarket wallets collectively earned approximately $1.2 million by purchasing ‘Yes’ shares in the ‘US strikes Iran by February 28?’ contract at prices as low as $0.10. One account, operating under the handle ‘Magamyman,’ placed its first trade seventy-one minutes before the news broke, when markets implied only a 17% probability of a strike. When those markets resolved in the affirmative, the account’s profits totalled approximately $553,000.

This episode is striking because it is hardly the first time this has occurred. Two months earlier, a pseudonymous Polymarket account called ‘Burdensome-Mix’ earned roughly $485,000 from a $38,500 investment in contracts tied to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—placing its largest trades just hours before a covert military operation was publicly announced. Israeli authorities separately indicted a civilian and an IDF reservist for allegedly using classified wartime information to profit on Polymarket. A trader earned over $1 million by predicting with uncanny precision the results of Google’s proprietary Year in Search rankings. Another appeared to have advance knowledge of OpenAI’s browser launch. And a user named ‘romanticpaul’ purchased Taylor Swift engagement contracts aggressively in the days before Swift publicly announced her engagement to Travis Kelce.

These cases are not merely colorful anecdotes. They represent a systematic challenge to the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern the use of inside information in connection with trading in traditional instruments like stocks, bonds and futures. Our paper, From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets, presents the first systematic empirical and legal study of this phenomenon.

Mystery traders may have bagged up to $50M on Trump’s announcement to pause Iran attacks: sources

It’s still not clear who was behind Monday’s perfectly timed bets on stocks and oil that came just minutes before President Trump signaled a pause on Iran attacks – but the resulting windfall was likely worth between $40 million and $50 million, On The Money has learned.

Wall Street traders are now anticipating some regulatory scrutiny of the trades, which were made about 10 minutes before 7 a.m. ET on Monday – normally a lull in the markets. About 7,200 oil futures contracts changed hands with a value of $760 million, said veteran commodities trader Mike Khouw.

Around the same time, he said, there was frenzied buying of S&P futures – 6,000 contracts with an underlying or “notional” value of $2 billion.

It’s not clear who was behind Monday’s perfectly timed bets on stocks and oil that came just minutes before President Trump signaled a pause on Iran attacks, but the resulting windfall was likely worth as much as $50 million.

Then came Trump’s 7:04 a.m. ET Truth Social post about “productive conversations” with Iran that sent crude oil prices down between 10% and 15% in the following minutes. Stocks, meanwhile, surged 4%.

It wasn’t just the timing of the bets but also their sheer size that immediately raised suspicions on Wall Street.