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.