We believe it’s likely that Justice Jackson failed to recuse in a cert. vote in 21-1503, Lloyds Banking Group plc, et al., v. Berkshire Bank, et al., despite a financial conflict (cert. denied on Sept. 28).

According to Jackson’s two most recent financial disclosures, she holds four Charles Schwab funds, and one of her retirement accounts is managed by Schwab.

Ownership of Schwab funds appears to be the reason that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Gorsuch recused, as the only other fund manager besides Schwab the four have in common is Vanguard, but Vanguard was not a party at any point in the litigation.

FTC brought this to the Court’s attention on Oct. 13 and the PIO wrote back within a few hours, “[A]n internal conflict check that was undertaken prior to the September 28 Conference determined that Justice Jackson did not have a conflict of interest in No. 21-1503.”

So, we see three possibilities:
1. Jackson has sold off the Schwab entities since February and thus did not need to recuse
2. Something besides Schwab that we can’t figure out caused the Roberts, Kagan and Gorsuch recusals to begin with
3. Jackson views her recusal responsibilities differently from her colleagues

We sincerely hope it’s not no. 3.

Click here to read more.