Supreme Court Justices Barrett and Alito Recuse Themselves from Separate Cases

On the Monday the Court released two procedural orders, Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Samuel Alito each declined to participate. Barrett recused herself from a petition arising from the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Eural Black, a firearms-conviction case that sought compassionate release under the First Step Act. Alito sat out the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Gasper v. EIDP, Inc., a dispute over pension payments after a divorce involving a former employee and companies tied to DuPont and Corteva. In both instances the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate rulings, leaving the lower-court judgments unchanged.

Newsweek

The Court’s internal ethics rules require a justice to step aside when “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Recusals typically stem from (1) prior involvement in the case, (2) a financial interest in a party, or (3) a personal relationship with a litigant. Barrett’s withdrawal aligns with the first category: she previously served on the Seventh Circuit, the very court that issued the Black decision. Alito’s recusal was not publicly explained, but analysts note that the Fourth Circuit case involved corporate entities, suggesting a possible financial-conflict scenario.

Newsweek

• Amy Coney Barrett – Associate Justice, former Seventh Circuit judge.

Newsweek

• Samuel Alito – Associate Justice, long-time Fourth Circuit observer.

Newsweek

• Eural Black – Federal inmate with multiple gun convictions seeking sentence reduction.

Newsweek

• David Gasper – Plaintiff alleging improper reduction of his monthly retirement benefits.

Newsweek

• DuPont and Corteva – Companies linked to the pension-benefits dispute.

Newsweek

• Seventh Circuit – Issued the Black decision.

Newsweek

• Fourth Circuit – Issued the Gasper decision.

Newsweek

The Supreme Court comprises nine members, yet “it is common for decisions—particularly procedural ones—to be issued with fewer than nine participating justices.” Routine recusals therefore do not necessarily alter the Court’s overall capacity to render judgments, but they do affect the composition of the voting panel for each case.

Newsweek

These recusals underscore a persistent tension between established ethics practices and growing demands for openness. While stepping aside is a standard safeguard against bias, the Court “does not typically explain why justices recuse themselves,” leaving observers to infer motives from case context. Critics argue that self-policing without external enforcement may erode public confidence, especially in high-profile matters.

Newsweek

No formal statements were issued by the Court regarding the two recusals. Legal commentators note that the lack of explanation is consistent with longstanding practice: justices are not required to disclose the specific reasoning behind a recusal, and the Court’s procedural orders simply record the absence of the participating justice.

Newsweek

Legal scholars and watchdog groups have highlighted the recusals as part of a broader debate over Supreme Court ethics. Justice Alito, for example, has faced criticism in prior cases for declining to recuse despite external calls for it. Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas has been scrutinized for undisclosed gifts and connections. These episodes have prompted bipartisan proposals for clearer ethics rules and mandatory disclosure of recusal rationales.

Newsweek

While Barrett’s motive is evident from her prior Seventh Circuit service, Alito’s reason remains undisclosed, creating a gap in the public record. The absence of an official explanation prevents definitive assessment of whether a financial conflict existed.

Newsweek

Legislators and ethics advocates continue to push for reforms that would require justices to provide written recusal explanations and subject those decisions to external review. Future recusals are likely to be examined through that evolving lens, potentially shaping the Court’s procedural transparency.

Newsweek