Barrett Says Recusal Explanations Carry Potential Personal Costs

US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said her reasons for not explaining recusals include the potential of personal and other costs that doing so might trigger.

Speaking at a SCOTUSblog event in Washington on Thursday to promote her new book, Barrett touched on a range of scenarios for stepping away from cases to remove actual bias or any appearance of it.

The instances might include financial conflicts or deeply held convictions that can’t be ignored. Justices also recuse over matters they worked on while sitting as lower court judges or in other jobs.

But Barrett said reasons also can extend deeper into the personal lives of justices and in other areas, creating broader exposure that might be troubling if they offer detailed recusal decisions.

“Well, is it really something I want to do to identify if that’s the reason to identify that person and then put that person in that position,” she said. “So I just sort of feel like when you think about the full range of reasons across the board, I don’t know what might arise in the future, so I think it’s just better not to say makes sense.”

Barrett and other Supreme Court conservatives, unlike their liberal colleagues, routinely decline to explain why they recuse from cases even after all of the justices embraced a code of conduct aimed at improving transparency.

The short explanations from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson typically cite federal recusal law and an ethics code provision. A description of the conflict typically highlights prior government or judicial service.

Barrett in the most recent term recused herself in a high-profile case linked to Oklahoma’s attempt to create the nation’s first faith-based charter school— a case that ultimately concluded with a deadlocked 4-4 vote blocking the state’s effort.

Barrett offered no explanation, but she is close friends with a key adviser to the Catholic school at the center of the case, Bloomberg News reported in May.

Barrett noted that work on the court can create unwanted consequences, including threats or actions deemed threatening, that can go beyond herself .

For instance, unsolicited pizzas have in recent months been sent to the homes of federal judges and Supreme Court justices and their family members—interpreted as a threat that the sender knows where they live. Barrett said that was true, in her case. “There are costs,” she said.

Barrett’s colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, said in a separate Thursday speaking appearance that he stopped teaching a course at George Washington University’s law school following the court’s decision in 2022 overturning the constitutional right to abortion.

Thomas attributed it to “unpleasantness,” in comments made at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law.

Thomas, who joined the Supreme Court in 1991 and is the longest-serving current justice, noted that he started teaching a law course again this fall semester at Catholic University. “I missed it over the last few years,” he said. “It’s been a real joy.”

Thomas made the remarks during a conversation with Jennifer Mascott, a former Thomas clerk and Catholic University law professor who now serves in the White House counsel’s office.

President Donald Trump in July nominated Mascott to serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.