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 (due to a perceived or actual conflict of interests), 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 sixth post in a series; earlier installments are here.

TNPs from SCOTUS’s March 9 orders

13-1412 SAN FRANCISCO, CA, ET AL. V. SHEEHAN, TERESA
Result: Solicitor general to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae
Recused justice: Breyer
Presumed reason: This case is about whether police officers need to make certain ADA-based accommodations when seeking to arrest a person known to be mentally disable. Justice Breyer’s brother Charles, a federal judge in California, took part in the case at an earlier stage.

13-1361 SAMANTAR, MOHAMED A. V. YOUSUF, BASHE, ET AL.
Result: Cert denied
Recused justice: Kagan
Presumed reason: This case stems from war crimes that Samantar, a former Somalian military general who now lives in Fairfax, Va., carried out in the 1970s and 1980s, including the abduction and torture of Bashe Yousuf. It’s fairly clear that the U.S. Department of Justice, and Justice Kagan in her capacity as U.S. solicitor general, would have been heavily involved in this case.

14-8004 DYCHES, LENNELL V. MARTIN, KAREN
Result: Cert denied
Recused justice: Kagan
Presumed reason: Dyches alleges that Martin, a court reporter, failed to record a significant part of his 2006 plea hearing. It’s unclear why Justice Kagan would have recused herself from this case.