Two U.S. Supreme Court justices declined to take part in decisions released Monday tied to federal appeals cases around a firearms conviction and pensions payments.
Conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito each sat out separate matters connected to lower-court rulings—moves that were not formally explained but align with long-standing judicial practice aimed at avoiding potential conflicts.
What Happened
Barrett recused herself from a decision tied to a Seventh Circuit case involving federal inmate Eural Black, while Alito did not participate in a Fourth Circuit-related case concerning a retirement benefits dispute between a former employee and companies linked to DuPont and Corteva.
In the Black case, the Seventh Circuit ruled that a man serving a lengthy sentence tied to “stacked” firearm convictions could not secure a reduction based on changes made by the First Step Act. Black argued that the gap between his sentence and what he would receive today should qualify as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for early release.
The court held that its own precedent still barred using those sentencing reforms as a basis for compassionate release, even after a new policy from the U.S. Sentencing Commission suggested otherwise.
In the other case, Gasper v. EIDP, Inc., the Fourth Circuit sided with corporate defendants in a dispute over pension payments. Plaintiff David Gasper argued his monthly retirement benefit had been improperly reduced following his divorce, but the court found the plan administrator’s method of spreading the cost of a survivor benefit across the total pension was valid.
The Fourth Circuit also rejected Gasper’s claim for penalties over delayed document disclosures, finding no evidence of harm or bad faith.
Both appellate rulings were affirmed, meaning the lower court decisions stood in full.
Why Did Barrett and Alito Sit Out?
The Supreme Court does not typically explain why justices recuse themselves, but the reasons are often discernible from context.
Legal experts generally group recusals into a few standard categories: prior involvement in a case, financial interests, or personal relationships with parties involved.
Barrett’s absence is consistent with one of the clearest triggers for recusal: prior judicial involvement. Justices routinely step aside from cases they handled earlier in their careers on lower courts, avoiding even the appearance of reviewing their own work, and Barrett served on the Seventh Circuit previously.
Alito’s recusal, by contrast, was not publicly explained, but aligns with another common scenario: potential financial conflicts involving corporate parties. Federal ethics law requires justices to sit out cases in which their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned,” including when they hold financial interests in companies tied to litigation.
Why It Matters
The recusals highlight a tension at the Supreme Court between standard judicial ethics practices and broader concerns about transparency and accountability.
On one hand, recusals are a normal and necessary feature of the Court’s work. Justices step aside regularly to comply with ethics rules, ensuring that cases are decided without bias or conflicts. Because the Court has only nine members and hears dozens of matters each term, it is common for decisions—particularly procedural ones—to be issued with fewer than nine participating justices.
On the other hand, recusals have become a focal point in recent debates over Supreme Court ethics.
Critics have argued that the system relies too heavily on self-policing, as each justice decides for themselves whether to step aside. Unlike lower court judges, Supreme Court justices are not subject to an external enforcement mechanism for recusal decisions, and they are not required to provide explanations.
That lack of transparency has drawn heightened scrutiny in recent years, particularly in high-profile cases where some justices declined to recuse despite calls from lawmakers or watchdog groups.
For example, Justice Samuel Alito has faced criticism over decisions not to step aside in cases involving political controversies, while Justice Clarence Thomas has been under scrutiny related to undisclosed gifts and connections that prompted questions about conflicts. Those episodes have fueled bipartisan calls for clearer ethics rules and more detailed disclosure requirements.
Against that backdrop, routine recusals—like those by Barrett and Alito—serve as a reminder of how the system is intended to function, even as critics push for greater consistency and openness.
The Bigger Picture
While neither case here involved a blockbuster Supreme Court ruling, as the Court simply declined to intervene, allowing the appellate decisions to stand, the recusals still illustrate broader institutional dynamics.
They show:
- How frequently conflicts can arise, especially in cases involving large corporations or long litigation histories
- How justices err on the side of caution in some situations, stepping aside to avoid ethical concerns
- How little the public often knows about those decisions, due to the Court’s longstanding practice of silence on recusal reasoning
As debates over judicial ethics continue, each recusal—routine or not—adds another data point to a growing discussion about how the Supreme Court balances independence with accountability.