Explaining the unexplained recusals in Supreme Court orders

Since the justices of the Supreme Court do not explain their reasons for recusing themselves from certain cases, Fix the Court is trying to put the pieces together for you in a series we’re calling “Took No Part,” since the phrase used in Supreme Court orders noting a recusal is “Justice [X] took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”

This is the fifth post in a series; earlier installments are here.

TNPs from SCOTUS’s Mar. 2 orders:

14-771 LABORERS’ LOCAL 265, ET AL. V. ISHARES TRUST, ET AL.
Result: Cert denied
Recused justice: Alito
Presumed reason: Though Justice Alito’s sister is an attorney who often represents management in disputes with labor, and one of Alito’s closest associates is of counsel at Skadden Arps, the high-powered law firm representing the respondents, it looks as if the justice recused in this case out of the Sixth Circuit due to the fact that he owns up to $300,000 in iShares stock, according to his 2013 financial disclosure report.

14-907 DOLENZ, BERNARD J. V. UNITED STATES
Result: Cert denied
Recused justice: Kagan
Presumed reason: Dolenz is a Dallas-based doctor whose license was suspended for failure to keep accurate records of his drug purchases. Justice Kagan’s connection to the case in unclear, but since the U.S. is the respondent, it is possible she worked on this case while U.S. solicitor general.