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 ninth post in a series; earlier installments are here.

TNPs from SCOTUS’s Apr. 6 orders:

14-8524: GOODEN, SELENA V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
Result: Cert denied
Recused justice: Roberts
Presumed reason: Unclear. Gooden is a former CDC worker who is claiming that President Clinton and other former and current government employees are using the CDC to run HIV experiments on humans. The question here is less why Roberts recused – there could be dozens of reasons given the number of public officials listed under “et al.” – and more how did this case reach the high court to begin with?

14-8737: CAPOCCIA, ANDREW V. UNITED STATES
Result: Cert denied
Recused justice: Sotomayor
Presumed reason: Unclear. Capoccia had a huge “debt reduction” business in New York, even advertising on TV that he could reduce his customers debts – you know these types of ads. Turns out he was stealing his client’s money – up to $23 million, in fact. Justice Sotomayor may have heard this case as a lower court judge, as she served on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court.

14-6117: GRUBBS, JIMMIE V. V. UNITED STATES and 14-7597: GAREY, EDDIE M. V. UNITED STATES
Result: Cert denied
Recused justice: Kagan
Presumed reason: Grubbs was convicted on child pornography charges and Garey was sent away for calling in a series bomb threats. Since the respondent is the U.S., it’s likely that Justice Kagan worked on these cases when she was the U.S. solicitor general before ascending to the high court in 2010.