Took No Part (Vol. 11)
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 11th post in a series; earlier installments are here.
TNPs from SCOTUS’s May 4 orders:
14-840: FERC V. ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY, ET AL. and 14-841: ENERNOC, INC., ET AL. V. ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOC.
Result: Cert granted
Recused justice: Alito
Presumed reason: EnergyConnect, which manages consumer energy usage depending on relative demand, is a party in the FERC case and was purchased was Johnson Controls in 2011. According to his mostly recently available financial disclosure report, Justice Alito owns up to $50,000 in shares of Johnson Controls, which requires him to sell his shares or recuse.
14-8004: DYCHES, LENNELL V. MARTIN, KAREN
Result: Rehearing denied
Recused justice: Kagan
Presumed reason: See Took No Part, Vol. 6.
14-9024: TELLIER, ROBIN V. UNITED STATES
Result: Cert denied
Recused justice: Sotomayor
Presumed reason: This case was initially filed in the same district where Justice Sotomayor served as a federal judge before she was appointed to the high court in 2009.