Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito declined to participate in decisions released Monday tied to two separate federal appeals cases—one involving a long-sentenced inmate seeking compassionate release under the First Step Act, and another
When the Supreme Court released its decisions Monday. two of its nine justices were absent from the matters at the center of each case: Amy Coney Barrett in one and Samuel Alito in the other. The Court did not formally explain either recusal, but the moves fit long-standing judicial practice aimed at avoiding potential conflicts.
Barrett recused herself from a decision tied to a Seventh Circuit case involving federal inmate Eural Black. In that case. the Seventh Circuit ruled that Black. who was 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 appeals court rejected that position. It 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. The Supreme Court’s Monday action meant the lower court’s ruling stood.
Alito, meanwhile, did not participate in a Fourth Circuit-related case involving a retirement benefits dispute. The dispute was between a former employee and companies linked to DuPont and Corteva. In Gasper v. EIDP, Inc., the Fourth Circuit sided with the corporate defendants. 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. It found no evidence of harm or bad faith. As with the Black case, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate outcomes—leaving both lower-court decisions in full effect.
Recusals at the Supreme Court rarely come with formal explanations. But the reasons often fall into patterns lawyers recognize. Legal experts generally describe standard categories that trigger recusal: prior involvement in a case. financial interests. or personal relationships with parties involved. Barrett’s absence matches one of the clearest triggers—prior judicial involvement. She served on the Seventh Circuit previously. making her recusal consistent with the practice of stepping aside to avoid even the appearance of reviewing earlier work.
Alito’s recusal was not publicly explained, but it aligns with another common scenario: potential financial conflicts involving corporate parties. Under federal ethics law. justices must sit out cases in which their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned. ” including when they hold financial interests in companies tied to litigation.
The contrast between what the Court is willing to say and what the public is left to infer has become part of the recurring tension around Supreme Court ethics. Recusals are a normal and necessary feature of how the Court tries to keep decisions free of bias or conflicts. With only nine members—and with dozens of matters on the docket each term—it is common for decisions to be issued with fewer than nine justices. The practice is designed to make sure participation is clean.
But the system has also drawn criticism for transparency gaps. 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 outward clarity has fueled heightened scrutiny in recent years. especially when high-profile controversies sparked calls from lawmakers and watchdog groups for stricter standards.
Justice Samuel Alito has faced criticism over decisions not to step aside in cases involving political controversies. and Justice Clarence Thomas has been under scrutiny tied to undisclosed gifts and connections that prompted questions about conflicts. Those episodes have helped drive bipartisan demands for clearer ethics rules and more detailed disclosure requirements.
Against that backdrop. Monday’s recusals—Barrett in the case involving Eural Black and Alito in the matter involving David Gasper—offer a reminder of how the Court’s ethics machinery works in practice. Neither case involved a “blockbuster” Supreme Court ruling, because the justices did not step in to overturn the appellate outcomes. Instead, the Court left the Seventh Circuit and Fourth Circuit decisions standing.
Still, the pattern matters. It shows how conflicts can surface in litigation that spans large corporations or long litigation histories, how justices sometimes step aside to avoid ethical concerns, and how little the public often learns about the decision-making behind those absences.
As debates over Supreme Court ethics continue, every recusal—whether tied to prior service or to questions of possible financial interest—adds another piece to the growing discussion about how the Court balances independence with accountability.
Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett Samuel Alito recusal Eural Black First Step Act compassionate release Gasper v. EIDP pension dispute DuPont Corteva U.S. Sentencing Commission ethics law Clarence Thomas