On Wednesday afternoon, the Supreme Court made a rare and unexpected announcement: Justice Neil Gorsuch had decided to recuse himself from the upcoming environmental case Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, which was set for oral arguments just days later.
Gorsuch had participated in the case up to that point, including voting to take it on, but now, without explanation, he withdrew from the case. This surprising move came in the context of the Court’s new ethics code, raising further questions about the timing and reasoning behind the decision.
The timing of Gorsuch’s recusal was particularly pointed. Just one day earlier, The New York Times had published an in-depth report revealing Gorsuch’s active opposition to a stronger, enforceable ethics code for the Court. According to the report, Gorsuch had been a major barrier to efforts by other justices to establish a mandatory code of conduct.
His resistance resulted in a code that was voluntary and lacked enforcement mechanisms, creating a system where the justices themselves are not held accountable for their actions, leaving oversight to public pressure from outside groups, which can be a messy and ineffective process.
Gorsuch’s recusal was linked to his personal ties to billionaire Philip Anschutz, whose companies could benefit from the Seven County case. Before joining the Supreme Court, Gorsuch had represented Anschutz’s interests in legal matters and maintained close professional and personal ties with him.
Gorsuch’s involvement with Anschutz was well known, and he had recused himself from several cases involving the billionaire while serving on lower courts. In fact, it was clear that the Seven County case, which concerns a proposed oil railway in Utah’s Uinta Basin, directly involved Anschutz’s business interests. This made Gorsuch’s recusal not only inevitable but necessary.
Gorsuch Recusal
However, Gorsuch did not immediately step down from the case. When Anschutz Exploration Corp. filed an amicus brief supporting a more limited environmental review for the project, it became even clearer that Gorsuch should recuse himself. Despite this, Gorsuch did not act.
It was only after months of mounting public pressure from progressive watchdog groups and Democratic lawmakers that he ultimately recused himself. The situation highlighted a troubling aspect of the Court’s ethics code: without clear enforcement, justices are left to decide for themselves whether to recuse, which can lead to delays and inconsistent decisions.
One of the most puzzling aspects of this episode is that, as an appeals court judge, Gorsuch had no hesitation about recusing himself from cases involving Anschutz. But as a Supreme Court justice, where no enforceable rules exist, Gorsuch seemed to delay the decision, likely because there was no clear external pressure on him to do so until it became a public issue.
This discrepancy underscores a critical flaw in the current ethics system. The lack of enforceable rules, a situation Gorsuch himself played a key role in creating, leaves justices with little guidance or accountability when it comes to conflicts of interest.
The absence of enforceable ethics rules is a serious concern. If there had been a mandatory code of conduct, Gorsuch might have sought guidance from a panel of lower court judges about whether he should recuse himself.
Instead, with no authority to enforce the rules, public scrutiny was the only mechanism available to push for his recusal. This situation further erodes public confidence in the Supreme Court, as the process becomes reactive and driven by outside pressure rather than an established set of ethical standards.
In the end, Gorsuch’s decision to recuse himself seemed more like a response to the public pressure than an act of ethical clarity. His recusal removed a potential distraction from the case, but the broader issue of the Supreme Court’s ethics code remains unresolved.
The Court’s current system, which lacks enforceability and clear accountability, is deeply flawed and undermines trust in the judiciary. To restore confidence, the Court must adopt stronger, enforceable ethics rules that ensure transparency and accountability, not just voluntary guidelines with no real consequences for violations.
