In the spring, a federal judge accused state legislators of messing with the court-ordered Everglades cleanup, saying their bill was "clearly defective" and that the governor was being "misled by persons who do not have the best interests of the Everglades at heart."

Senior U.S. District Judge William Hoeveler is about to learn whether his unusually provocative comments will cost him the job of enforcing the cleanup agreement that he orchestrated a decade ago.

The sugar industry is seeking to have the prominent Miami judge pulled off the case, claiming his "bully pulpit" comments in court and to reporters betray a bias against sugar interests.

Several legal experts say Hoeveler may have entered the realm of impropriety when he spoke with reporters about the Everglades case, but they stress it's rare for a federal judge to be removed over an issue of fairness -- unless he says something flagrantly prejudicial.

Such removals are uncommon, because federal judges rarely talk publicly about their cases. Possible punishment ranges from a public reprimand to removal from a case.

Two notable examples:

• A decade ago, a trial judge said on ABC's Nightline that abortion protesters were breaking the law after he had issued an injunction ordering them to stop hindering access to women's clinics in Wichita, Kan. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that U.S. District Judge Patrick Kelly be removed from the case because he appeared to become an "active participant."
   

• In 2001, a federal appellate court disqualified U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson from the government's antitrust case against Microsoft after he talked to reporters, likening Microsoft's chairman, Bill Gates, to Napoleon and his firm to a murderous street gang. The judge's ruling to break up the software giant also was overturned.

'Outlandish'

"As in the Microsoft case, it would have to be so outlandish that it warrants the removal of the judge," Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor and ethics expert, said about Hoeveler's commentary. "This is nothing close to the Microsoft case."

But whether Hoeveler -- one of the nation's most respected trial judges, who has a University of Miami legal ethics award named for him -- crossed a line is open to question. And that will be answered by Chief U.S. District Judge William Zloch of the Southern District of Florida.

Under federal law, Zloch must answer whether "a reasonable person" might question Hoeveler's impartiality based on his public comments. Zloch's aides said he was out of the district last week, but the decision could come at any time, with or without a formal hearing on the issue.

All parties in the case had until the end of last week to file responses to the motion by U.S. Sugar Corp. to disqualify the 81-year-old Hoeveler.

The judge's office said he would not comment on the motion.

This month, Florida's two biggest sugar companies challenged Hoeveler's role after he put the Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush on notice that their amendments to the 1994 Everglades Forever Act would violate his court-approved settlement between the state Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida Water Management District and the federal government.

Critics contend the amended legislation, signed by Bush last month, would allow the state to push back a deadline to clean up farm and suburban pollution until 2016 -- 10 years beyond the date established in the consent decree adopted by Hoeveler.

U.S. Sugar, which signed part of the 1992 consent order, is pushing hard for Hoeveler's removal, comparing his conduct with that of the Microsoft judge.

For a federal judge, Hoeveler's public comments clearly were unusual, candid and provocative, drawing the wrath of the sugar industry but praise from environmentalists and some Florida congressional members.

Several legal experts said Hoeveler's comments at a court hearing and in orders don't raise questions of impropriety, because he simply expressed his opinions about the Everglades consent decree. But they said his remarks to the media were disturbing because he was still in charge of enforcing the court order.

"This is a question of fact -- he either went beyond explaining court proceedings or he didn't," said Steven Lubet, a Northwestern University law professor and judicial expert. "To deserve disqualification, [his comments] would have to be so outrageous as to completely undermine the possibility of a fair trial."

At least one legal observer said Hoeveler's public remarks were "troublesome" and could lead to his removal.

"He has made himself very vulnerable," Georgetown University law Professor Roy Schotland said, refraining from predicting the outcome. "He has jeopardized his ability to stay on the case."

But some experts said other factors may also come into play -- notably the judge's longevity on the case, his sterling trial record and his longtime reputation for fairness.

He was assigned to handle the federal government's lawsuit against the state over the Everglades cleanup in 1988. Since adopting the consent decree four years later, Hoeveler has periodically checked on the state's progress on the $8 billion restoration project.

News Accounts

The judge said he became alarmed in April, when he read news accounts of legislation being crafted with the help of more than 40 sugar-industry lobbyists. Early versions of proposed amendments to the Everglades Forever Act amounted to a gutting of the state's pollution laws, critics said.

"While I am deeply troubled by the content of the bill, I am dismayed by the process that led to its passage," Hoeveler wrote in his May 9 order. "The bill was moved quickly through the legislative process, reportedly at the behest of more than 40 lobbyists for the sugar industry. . . . The treatment of the bill seemed calculated to avoid federal participation or public scrutiny.

"Apparently, [the governor] has been misled by persons who do not have the best interests of the Everglades at heart."

But the judge did not stop with his written order -- answering questions posed to him in separate interviews by reporters from The Herald, The Sun-Sentinel and The St. Petersburg Times.

In particular, some legal experts were taken aback by Hoeveler's comments in a May 18 Times story: "I think Bush is a good man and he means well," said Hoeveler, a lifelong Democrat who voted for Bush last year. "But I'm afraid he fell into the hands of those who don't like the Everglades."

Hoeveler said he has heard nothing but praise for blasting the Legislature. "I don't think they realize in Tallahassee what the reaction has been," he said. 'Everyone I meet comments, 'Do it! Do it! Do it!' "

Neal McAliley, a former Justice Department attorney who represented the federal government in the Everglades case from 1997 to 2002, said U.S. Sugar's motion to disqualify Hoeveler was par for the course in the 15-year battle.

"Basically, the sugar companies have consistently challenged Judge Hoeveler's jurisdiction to even have this case," said McAliley.

McAliley agreed that the judge's comments to the media provided a "toehold" for a challenge to remove him but said he wouldn't venture further opinion: "I don't think there is any sort of single, bright-line standard."