24-6839, BAKER, RALPH W. V. COATES, TA-NEHISI, ET AL.: Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.” Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Earlier today the Supreme Court announced (also noted above) that the justices were affirming a lower court’s decision in the petition described above, 24-6839, Baker v. Coates, because the Court lacked a quorum.

Turns out five justices recused, with four of them recusing likely due to their book-writing proclivities.

It’s well-established that the current batch of justices are prodigious writers and not just when it comes to the Court’s opinions and orders: six of the nine have written or are writing books — autobiographies in most cases.

Four of the six have had or will have books published by Penguin Random House, whose parent company, a German media conglomerate called Bertelsmann, is a named party in this case:
— Justice Sotomayor (several, including her 2014 autobiography)
— Justice Gorsuch (his 2020 A Republic…)
— Justice Barrett (her autobiography out this fall)
— Justice Jackson (her 2024 autobiography)

This appears to be the third instance in which the justices are taking the proactive step of recusal in light of the 2023 adoption of a Code of Conduct.

The other two? A Justice Barrett recusal in a case her close friend was involved in during an early stage, and a Justice Gorsuch recusal in a case whose result could benefit a close mentor of his.

Fix the Court has for many years said that the justices should recuse from petitions involving companies — i.e., their publishers — that pay them thousands if not millions of dollars nearly every year in advances, royalties or both.

And now they’ve finally done it.

As far as the Justice Alito recusal goes, it’s unclear at the moment as to the reason why. It’s possible he bought stock of late in one of the parties or in one of their parent companies (e.g., Apple, Amazon, Warner Bros.), but on the other hand, he has been up-to-date with his PTRs (see this one from earlier in May), and there are no new stock purchases listed in the database (see the old ones here).

It would be nice if the justices explained their recusals, of course, which they by and large don’t, but in any event, we’ll keep digging on this.