Last month, I noted that Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson took different approaches to their recusals from cases before the high court: Jackson explained hers, while Alito did not. Fast-forward to Tuesday’s order list, which displays a fuller party-line split, with Democratic appointees explaining their recusals and Republican appointees failing to do so.
Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan noted their reasons for not participating in cases on Tuesday’s list. Alito, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, all GOP appointees, did not.
And what were the justices’ reasons? When it comes to Kagan and Jackson, they told us. Kagan, for example, cited a provision in the justices’ code of conduct for prior government employment related to the cases she recused herself from. Kagan was previously the U.S. solicitor general.
As for Barrett, Alito and Roberts, we’re left to wonder. Does it mean those three justices are hiding something? That would be a weird way to do so, because they could have just not noted their recusals at all (which, of course, would be the wrong thing to do). That makes it even sillier that they didn’t simply explain themselves.








