On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado. While he did not disclose a reason for recusal, the decision followed revelations from Accountable.US that Gorsuch’s billionaire benefactor, Philip Anschutz, stood to benefit from the case. Importantly, one of Anschutz’s companies filed an amicus brief outlining its interests in the case.
We have learned over the last few years about the close ties between several Supreme Court justices and billionaires like Philip Anschutz, Paul Singer, and Harlan Crow. These mega-donors often fund groups that file amicus briefs, asserting their interests in cases before the Court. The Revolving Door Project, Take Back the Court, True North Research, and Court Accountability have been tracking amicus briefs that create conflicts of interest at the Supreme Court. Our organizations recently put out research showing how 17 amicus briefs in U.S. v. Skrmetti, out of a total of 50 supporting the respondent, are tied to the justices’ powerful friends and benefactors.
In response to Justice Gorsuch’s recusal, Revolving Door Project Executive Director Jeff Hauser released the following statement: “Many of the people we know are closely connected to the justices have obvious interests in Supreme Court cases even when they are not named parties. Justice Gorsuch’s recusal is a sign that he actually recognizes the sorts of conflicts of interest that arise when a Supreme Court justice is deeply involved with billionaires — or at the very least, he realizes how it looks when there is significant press scrutiny. It’s not clear that his colleagues have come to the same realization, or that requiring this degree of outrage is tenable in the long term.”
“If there’s one thing a rare recusal like Gorsuch’s shows us, it’s that these justices know when they should recuse themselves. When they refuse, what stops them isn’t a lack of understanding; it’s that their desire to help out their wealthy right-wing friends and benefactors outweighs any desire to act with integrity,” said Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of Take Back the Court. “This is exactly why we need real Supreme Court reform and actual accountability for the justices. Without it, we’re doomed to countless more terms allowing these so-called justices to pretend to police themselves. And we’ve all seen how well that has worked.”
“The web of corruption that entangles Supreme Court justices is a reason why the public has such little faith in the court. Gorsuch’s vague letter cannot restore confidence in the Court, but it does highlight the need for an enforceable ethics code along with rules that ensure the disclosure of the deep connections some justices have forged with billionaires,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of True North Research and managing director of Court Accountability. “A fair system of justice warrants much more than ad hoc recusals.”
For more information on the connections between groups that file amicus briefs and the powerful individuals at the center of the Court’s ethics scandals, visit SupremeTransparency.org.
