Rule 25. RECUSAL · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 17, 2026
In one sentenceRule 25.3 requires a judge presented with a recusal motion and affidavit to stop ruling on the case’s merits and immediately assess whether the motion is timely and the affidavit legally sufficient, assuming the alleged facts true, and to hand the recusal question to another judge if those facts would warrant disqualification.
Full Text of Rule 25.3
Text size
When a judge is presented with a motion to recuse, or disqualify, accompanied by an affidavit, the judge shall temporarily cease to act upon the merits of the matter and shall immediately determine the timeliness of the motion and the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, and make a determination, assuming any of the facts alleged in the affidavit to be true, whether recusal would be warranted. If it is found that the motion is timely, the affidavit sufficient and that recusal would be authorized if some or all of the facts set forth in the affidavit are true, another judge shall be assigned to hear the motion to recuse. The allegations of the motion shall stand denied automatically. The trial judge shall not otherwise oppose the motion. In reviewing a motion to recuse, the judge shall be guided by Rule 2.11 of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.
Former Rule 25.2 renumbered as Rule 25.3 and amended effective January 31, 1991; amended May 24, 2012; April 9, 2026.
Plain-English Summary
The moment a judge receives a recusal motion backed by a proper affidavit, Rule 25.3 takes the judge off the merits of the underlying case. The judge’s first job is a threshold screen: is the motion timely, and is the affidavit legally sufficient under Rule 25.2? In doing that screen, the judge assumes the facts alleged in the affidavit are true, without weighing whether they happened.
If the motion clears that bar — timely, sufficient, and disqualifying if the alleged facts are true — the case does not stay with the challenged judge. Another judge gets assigned to decide the recusal motion itself, and the original allegations stand automatically denied in the meantime. The challenged judge is directed not to fight the motion, and Rule 25.3 points judges to Rule 2.11 of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct for guidance on when recusal is warranted in the first place.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a judge do first upon receiving a motion to recuse with a supporting affidavit?
Temporarily cease acting on the merits of the underlying matter and immediately determine the timeliness of the motion and the legal sufficiency of the affidavit.
Does the judge decide whether the facts in the affidavit are true at this stage?
No. The judge assumes the facts alleged in the affidavit are true for purposes of deciding whether recusal would be warranted if those facts were established.
Who ends up deciding the recusal motion if it passes the timeliness and sufficiency screen?
Another judge is assigned to hear the motion to recuse.
Is the challenged judge allowed to argue against the recusal motion?
No. The trial judge shall not otherwise oppose the motion.
What standard guides a judge’s review of a recusal motion?
Rule 2.11 of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Uniform Superior Court Rules, published by the
Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia. Last verified July 17, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:what happens when judge gets recusal motion GeorgiaUSCR Rule 25.3judge duty upon recusal motion Georgiaassign another judge recusal motion GeorgiaGeorgia Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 recusal