The Supreme Court issued a routine order list Tuesday that, as usual, largely consisted of the justices declining to review a bunch of pending petitions (the court takes relatively few cases, compared with the many requests it receives). But two of those denials highlighted different approaches from Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Samuel Alito in how they see their public duties. Jackson explained why she recused herself from a case. Alito didn’t.
In the case Jackson recused from, the denial was followed by this explanation on the order list:
Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. See 28 U. S.C. §455 and Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, Canon 3B(2)(e) (prior judicial service).
The case came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where Jackson sat as a judge prior to her high court appointment. The code of conduct section she cited says disqualification is warranted when a justice “has served in government employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed during prior government or judicial service an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
With the case Alito recused himself from, the order merely said: “Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.” No explanation.
Why did he recuse, then? Possibly for the same reason as Jackson. The case came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, where Alito sat prior to his high court appointment, and he may have participated in a prior related matter there. Though if that’s the reason, it’s worth pointing out that there’s no recusal listed from the denial of a Supreme Court petition in 2016 by the same person whose petition was denied Tuesday, and Alito noted his recusal from other cases that term.
It’s made all the…
Read the full article here