Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson recused today in 25-1391, BMG v. Vetter, due to their book deals, as BMG and Penguin Random House share the same parent company.

This is the second time since the justices adopted a Code of Conduct that multiple justices recused in a petition involving their book publisher (first time noted here).

Below is a statement from FTC’s Gabe Roth:

“Today’s recusals make clear that the Supreme Court’s current disqualification standards need review.

“Am I happy the justices are recusing in cases involving their book publisher and its parent company? Yes. As Penguin Random House authors, they have financial ties to PRH’s parent company Bertelsmann, which owns BMG.

“But is this practice sustainable? No, for multiple reasons.

“This result either means that Bertelsmann and PRH cases are immune from SCOTUS review, or the justices will try to carve out some ‘duty to sit’ exception in a future case of theirs that will more likely than not look ridiculous.

“The justices should not wait to act until the next petition involving their book publishers reaches the high court. (For what it’s worth, Hachette, which just published Justice Alito’s book and will publish Justice Kavanaugh’s book, and HarperCollins, which published Justice Thomas’, are also part of large conglomerates.)

“Instead, justice-authors should place their book earnings in accounts they cannot access until after they retire from the court, thus mitigating the need for recusal. Federal jurists’ second jobs — whether as authors or public affairs firm managers — must not interfere with their ability to perform their primary jobs.

“While not a perfect solution, I believe this is better than the status quo, where the lack of a quorum means a lower court’s judgment is affirmed, and the Supreme Court is no longer supreme.”