Liberal Democracy: Its Rise and Fall:  A Lesson in Court Ethics but Will it be a Wasted Effort?

Introduction: Justice Gorsuch and His Astounding Recusal

Justice Gorsuch and His Astounding Recusal may just be a warning to each of his colleagues, especially Justices Thomas and Alito who are embroiled in the shame of acting in their self-interest in deciding cases before them that are beholding to benefactors and cannot be impartial. In an unexpected move, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently recused himself from Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, a case involving the interests of billionaire Philip Anschutz.

While Gorsuch did not provide specific reasons for his recusal, it is widely believed that his decision stemmed from the scrutiny over his ties to Anschutz, who stood to benefit from the case. This action, while rare, provides a critical lesson for Gorsuch’s colleagues, especially Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. It highlights the need for justices to uphold the appearance of impartiality and its substance—a core principle that underpins public trust in the judiciary.

Justice Gorsuch and His Astounding Recusal and Its Significance

Justice Gorsuch’s decision to recuse himself from the Seven County case is noteworthy; it signals a moment of introspection for the highest court in the land. In a climate of rising skepticism regarding the Court’s impartiality, Gorsuch’s recusal stands as an example of what legal ethics demands: when there is a conflict of interest, it is not enough to simply appear neutral; justices must act impartially to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

The public’s trust in the Supreme Court has been significantly eroded in recent years due to revelations about justices’ relationships with wealthy donors. Gorsuch’s recusal, particularly after the scrutiny surrounding his ties to Anschutz, calls attention to the larger issue: many justices, including Thomas and Alito, have failed to recognize or act on similar conflicts of interest. In recent years, the connection between the Court’s justices and powerful donors has raised serious concerns, not only about fairness but about the integrity of the judicial process itself.

Why Gorsuch’s Recusal Should Set a Standard for His Colleagues

Justice Gorsuch’s decision to recuse himself from the Seven County case is a rare but important step in upholding the principles of legal ethics. By stepping back, Gorsuch demonstrated an understanding of the significance of impartiality, even when there are no direct financial stakes in a case. His recusal stands as a reminder that when justices are tied to influential political or financial figures, their impartiality can be questioned.

This action stands in sharp contrast to the behavior of other justices who have faced similar scrutiny but have failed to recuse themselves. For instance, Justice Clarence Thomas has faced criticism over his ties to Harlan Crow, a major conservative benefactor, yet Thomas has refused to recuse himself from cases where Crow’s interests may be at play. Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito’s ties to wealthy donors and his acceptance of luxury trips funded by them have sparked ethical concerns. Gorsuch’s decision to recuse himself in Seven County should serve as a wake-up call for these justices, urging them to consider the long-term impact of their actions on the public’s trust in the Court.

The Supreme Court’s Ethical Crisis: More Than Just Recusals

Justice Gorsuch and His Astounding Recusal may just be a warning to each of his colleagues, especially Justices Thomas and Alito who are embroiled in the shame o is a rare acknowledgment that conflicts of interest are not only real but need to be addressed transparently and consistently. However, one recusal is not enough. If the Supreme Court is to restore faith in its impartiality, the justices must adopt a clear, enforceable ethics code that extends beyond occasional recusals. The absence of such a code allows for the appearance of bias to persist, undermining the public’s confidence in the Court’s ability to fairly interpret the law.

The ethical lapses that have come to light, particularly the close relationships between justices and billionaire benefactors, threaten to diminish the Court’s legitimacy. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, for example, the Revolving Door Project identified several amicus briefs linked to the justices’ powerful friends. In this case, 17 out of 50 briefs filed in support of the respondent were tied to wealthy figures with interests in the case.

These connections cannot be ignored, and they underscore the need for a formalized ethics system to ensure justices are held accountable. Justice Gorsuch and His Astounding Recusal may be a small step in bringing ethics to the Supreme Court. After all, if Justices cannot be impartial, how does one expect Judges to be impartial? Justice Gorsuch and His Astounding Recusal may be understood as an individual act of a single Justice; will the lesson he sets rub off on others?

Justice Gorsuch and His Astounding Recusal: A Tiny Step Toward Reform

The larger issue that Gorsuch’s recusal highlights is the deepening entanglement of the Supreme Court with political and financial elites. For years, conservative donors such as Philip Anschutz, Paul Singer, and Harlan Crow have wielded significant influence over the Court through their funding of interest groups that filed amicus briefs. These briefs, often filed in support of conservative causes, raise questions about whether the Court’s decisions are influenced by the interests of the wealthy, rather than by the law itself.

Justice Gorsuch’s decision is a reminder that the justices, especially those with close ties to powerful figures, must adhere to the highest ethical standards. As Sarah Lipton-Lubet of Take Back the Court pointed out, the fact that Gorsuch understood the optics of his involvement in the Seven County case shows that the justices are aware of when their impartiality is compromised. Yet, this awareness seems to be lacking in other members of the Court, particularly Thomas and Alito, whose actions often fail to meet the ethical expectations of their office.

To ensure the continued integrity of the Supreme Court, more than just occasional recusals are necessary. The Court must implement clear rules for recusals, strengthen transparency in financial dealings, and establish an enforceable ethics code. Only through such reforms can the Court restore its reputation as an impartial institution dedicated to upholding the law, not the interests of a powerful few.

Conclusion: Thinking about the Road Ahead for the Supreme Court

Justice Gorsuch and His Astounding Recusal may just be a warning to each of his colleagues, especially Justices Thomas and Alito who are embroiled in the shame serves as an important lesson in judicial ethics. While it demonstrates an understanding of the potential for conflicts of interest, it also underscores the need for systemic change to ensure that such conflicts are consistently addressed.

As public trust in the Court continues to wane, justices like Thomas and Alito should reflect on Gorsuch’s actions and recognize the broader need for reform. The impartiality of the Supreme Court is not just about appearances—it is about ensuring that the law is applied fairly and without bias, regardless of the personal interests or political affiliations of the justices.

Sources Cited

Hauser, J. (2024). A recusal is not enough: Justice Gorsuch’s decision signals a need for comprehensive reform. Revolving Door Project.
Graves, L. (2024). The entanglement of billionaires and the Supreme Court. True North Research.
Lipton-Lubet, S. (2024). Impartiality in crisis: The urgent need for ethics reform in the Supreme Court. Take Back the Court.

Suggestions for Further Reading

Balkin, J. M. (2020). The Constitution in the age of inequality: The power of the court and the politics of reform.

Bradley, C. A. (2019). Judicial recusal and the appearance of impartiality: Lessons from the Roberts Court.

Brenner, J. A. (2023). The influence of wealth on Supreme Court jurisprudence: An analysis of amicus briefs and billionaire ties.

Fisher, L. (2021). The Supreme Court and the public: Restoring confidence through transparency and accountability.

Greenhouse, L. (2022). Justice on trial: The ethical dilemmas facing the modern Supreme Court.

Kagan, E. (2020). The ethics of judicial independence and accountability: A reconsideration of the modern court.

O’Connor, S. (2018). Judicial ethics in America: From transparency to reform.

Scalia, A., & Garner, B. A. (2019). Reading law: The interpretation of legal texts.

Somin, I. (2023). The limits of judicial power: A critique of the modern Supreme Court.

DISCLAIMER: The images on this page, and across the whole blog are created using AI imaging and are intended to illustrate the argument in the post. They are NOT representing real people or events directly, rather the images enhance the argument and nothing more. We do not intend any offense, nor do we intend to single out individuals in any way by the images themselves.