By Manny Marotta, FTC law clerk

When the Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear an appeal brought by far-right activist Laura Loomer, one line in the brief order attracted extra attention: Justice Alito “took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”

Alito’s recusal led to speculation about his decision to step aside, particularly given his recent history of controversy.

But the likely explanation is abundantly average: Alito and/or his wife own stock in Procter & Gamble (p. 7), which was named as a defendant in Loomer’s lawsuit.

Federal law requires Supreme Court justices to recuse in cases and petitions where they, their spouse or their minor children own even $1 worth of stock in a company that’s a party, so that’s what Alito did. (In this case, Loomer sued social media companies, alleging they conspired to suppress her speech and harm her congressional campaigns. Lower courts repeatedly dismissed her claims, and the Supreme Court has now declined to grant cert.) P&G was included in the suit over its alleged role in encouraging Facebook to ban certain users.

Recusals over stock ownership are standard practice for Alito, who holds shares in 28 companies and who’s recused in P&G petitions in each of the last four terms, as well as in several terms before that. He and his wife inherited the shares when his father-in-law died in 2012.

Media outlets’ speculation of ulterior motives is unfounded. Certain controversies may have colored public perception of Alito’s ethics, but it’s important to distinguish them from this recusal.

And it’s a distinction that matters. When every routine recusal is treated as a coded signal or partisan act, it becomes harder to bring attention to genuine ethical concerns within the judiciary. The public deserves accountability — but also clarity.

Sometimes, the simplest answer is the right one: Justice Alito recused because the law required him to do so.