WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a June 9 analysis, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) examined the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene in a lower court ruling after five justices recused themselves from the case.
Although no official explanation was provided, CREW suggests the recusals may be tied to a publishing company that has represented works by four of the justices who stepped aside. The organization speculates that the decision reflects a commitment to transparency and accountability, as the justices appeared to recognize a potential conflict of interest. CREW further inferred that the recusals may have stemmed from concerns over financial entanglements that could compromise the integrity of the Court’s decision.
With six justices unable to participate, a majority vote could not be reached. According to 28 U.S. Code § 1, as cited by the Legal Information Institute, the Supreme Court must have at least six justices to rule on a case. As a result, the lower court’s decision remained in place.
CREW reports that the case, Baker v. Coates, involved a copyright infringement claim. Plaintiff Ralph W. Baker, Jr., filed the claim against Ta-Nehisi Coates and 24 other individuals. Baker alleged that the defendants used several terms, themes, and names from his book as the basis for their own work. Baker authored Shock Exchange: How Inner-City Kids From Brooklyn Predicted the Great Recession and the Pain Ahead (“Shock Exchange”), while Coates published The Water Dancer. Baker’s evidence emphasized his discovery of elements from his own life appearing in someone else’s book.
According to the Supreme Court filing, the case had been reviewed by multiple courts and was appealed twice. It was initially dismissed with prejudice by Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, meaning it could not be refiled. Oetken found that the works lacked substantial similarity and ruled that writing styles are not copyrightable. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, finding any similarities between the two works unsubstantial. The case was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court, where several justices recused themselves.
Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all recused themselves without explanation. While CREW described the recusals as a “step in the right direction,” the group called for a more formal, consistent, and transparent process for addressing conflicts of interest in Supreme Court cases. CREW emphasized that current practices allow justices to choose whether or not to provide explanations for their recusals, with no enforcement mechanism in place.
Disqualification standards for justices are outlined in 28 U.S. Code § 455, which includes disqualifying factors such as personal bias, prior involvement in the matter, or financial interest. However, CREW noted that there is “no enforcement mechanism aside from the justices’ self-evaluation.” In response to public pressure, a code of conduct was introduced in 2023, but CREW argues it offers only non-binding recommendations and no consequences for violations. The code also lacks independent oversight. As CREW explained, the code “merely formalized the existing practice of voluntary decision-making by the justices themselves,” without binding authority.
In light of longstanding public criticism, CREW pointed to past cases where justices arguably should have recused themselves. According to Fix the Court, a watchdog group, the public continues to monitor instances where recusals may have been warranted. For example, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas both ruled on Moore v. United States in 2023, a case involving the taxation of unrealized business profits, despite reportedly holding interests in LLCs or partnerships that could benefit from a favorable ruling. A victory for the plaintiffs in Moore could have shielded the justices from certain taxes.
Another case in 2020 involved Justice Alito, who did not recuse himself from Valentine v. PNC Financial Services, despite owning shares in PNC Bank, one of the named parties. Fix the Court identified numerous similar examples, reinforcing the need for a formal structure to govern recusals.
Considering the Supreme Court’s history regarding recusals, CREW argued that personal financial or professional interests have too often been allowed to influence—or appear to influence—judicial decisions. Still, the group called the recent recusals in the Baker case “encouraging signs that the Court is moving in the right direction.”
Public attention to judicial integrity continues to grow. As Politico noted, Chief Justice Roberts recently warned that the rule of law is “endangered,” while calling for renewed emphasis on civic education.
CREW concluded that these developments reflect growing potential for accountability—especially if legislators act. The White House has reintroduced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which “would require the Supreme Court to adopt a binding and enforceable code of ethical conduct,” according to an official statement. In its analysis, CREW emphasized that such a law would help address persistent concerns about judicial bias and help restore public confidence in the nation’s highest court, especially amid an increasingly polarized political climate.
