Five Supreme Court Justices Sit Out Case in Rare Move
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a copyright lawsuit against writer Ta-Nehisi Coates on Monday after five justices recused themselves from hearing the appeal, leaving the court without a quorum.
According to the order released on Monday, Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson did not participate in considering the petition, effectively ending the case at the appellate level.
Newsweek has contacted the Supreme Court for comment.
Why It Matters
The incident marks the highest number of justices sitting out a Supreme Court case since the court adopted a formal code of conduct in 2023. With no quorum, the ruling of the lower appellate court, which rejected allegations that Coates plagiarized from Ralph W. Baker's book Shock Exchange, remains in force. The incident has put renewed focus on judicial ethics and financial conflicts of interest, an issue under public scrutiny following recent disclosures about justices' lucrative book deals and gifts.
The Supreme Court sitting for a group portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022.
The Supreme Court sitting for a group portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022.
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
What To Know
The rare mass recusal halted the court's ability to review Baker v. Coates, which involved allegations of plagiarism against Coates and several entities connected to his book The Water Dancer. The justices did not publicly explain their reasons for recusal.
Michael Gerhardt, the Burton Craige distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina, told Newsweek of another instance when justices' recusals left no quorum.
"In 1945, all the Supreme Court justices recused themselves in a case called U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of America," Gerhardt said. "Congress had to pass a special law that authorized the 2nd Circuit of Appeals to render the final judgment in the matter, and Judge Learned Hand's opinion for the appellate court is widely regarded as one of his best (and the only opportunity he would have to make a decision that was effectively a Supreme Court decision)."
He said the public would likely not know why the justices recused themselves from Baker v. Coates unless the justices chose to disclose that information.
"But here, it appears the justices had recused themselves because they had book deals with the same publisher as is involved in the current case before the Court," Gerhardt said.
A party in the case owns Penguin Random House, which has published or plans to publish books by Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson.
Alito, whose published works have not been associated with Penguin Random House, also recused himself from the proceeding.
Baker filed a suit in 2022 alleging that Coates' The Water Dancer plagiarized content from his Shock Exchange: How Inner-City Kids From Brooklyn Predicted the Great Recession and the Pain Ahead. A federal district court dismissed the case, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal, with the courts finding that the works had little in common beyond broad subject matter.
Despite the Supreme Court's adoption of a formal ethics code in 2023, many advocacy groups have called for further reforms, such as mandated transparency about justices' reasons for withdrawal and stronger enforcement mechanisms. The current code encourages recusal in the case of direct financial interest but does not compel justices to explain such decisions publicly.
What People Are Saying
Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, told Newsweek: "Unless the justices tell us why they have recused themselves, we generally would not know."
Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, told The Washington Post: "Credit where credit is due. For the code to work, the justices would have to do things they wouldn't normally have, and that appears to be the case here."
What Happens Next
With only four justices remaining, the court could not form the statutory quorum of six needed to hear the case. Supreme Court rules require that the lower court's decision, which found no substantial similarity between Baker's and Coates' works, be allowed to stand.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Polish supreme court ratifies nationalist's presidential vote win
Poland's Supreme Court on Tuesday said it had validated the result of last month's presidential election won by the nationalist opposition candidate, despite numerous appeals over the conduct of the vote. In the country's highly polarised political landscape, concerns had also been voiced over the legitimacy of the court chamber which will issue the verdict. Karol Nawrocki, backed by the Law and Justice (PiS) party, scored 51 percent of votes to win the June 1 runoff election, according to official results -- a major blow for the pro-EU government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk and LGBTQ rights campaigners. Warsaw mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, the candidate put forward by the government, lost out by 369,000 votes in the country of 38 million people. "All of the circumstances clearly demonstrate that Karol Tadeusz Nawrocki garnered more votes than Rafał Kazimierz Trzaskowski during the second round of the vote," judge Krzysztof Wiak announced after a hearing, also confirming the election result. Prosecutors had alleged that the vote count was falsified in Nawrocki's favour at some polling stations, fuelling calls for a national recount. PiS dismissed doubts about the vote as an attempt to "steal the election". According to the Polish constitution, the Supreme Court had to validate the ballot before the winner could be sworn in at a joint session of parliament -- a ceremony planned for August 6. However, European courts and legal experts have questioned the legitimacy of the Exceptional Supervision and Public Matters Chamber, the Supreme Court body that issued the ruling on Tuesday. The European Court of Human Rights said in 2023 that the Chamber does not fulfil the definition of "an independent and impartial tribunal established by law". Justice Minister Adam Bodnar, who is also the prosecutor general, had asked in vain for all of the chamber's judges to be excluded. Tusk has criticised the chamber, but recognised on Monday that "it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to rule whether an election is valid or not". "It is not possible... for the Supreme Court to be replaced in this matter... by the prosecutor general or the government," the prime minister said. - 'Paralyse the Supreme Court' - The Supreme Court had received around 56,000 election protests since the second round of voting. Judges have already dismissed, without taking further action, more than 50,000 complaints, many of which were based on protest templates shared on social media. Supreme Court chief justice Malgorzata Manowska criticised the sending of template-based protests as an "operation meant to... paralyse the Supreme Court". Bodnar complained that prosecutors were not given access to all of the 56,000 protests and suggested that the chamber's examination of those could be nothing more than a "facade". Still, the court ordered the results from 13 polling stations to be recounted earlier this month. National prosecutors later said that in some of those polling stations votes were transferred from one candidate to another, mainly in Nawrocki's favour. Government coalition lawmaker Roman Giertych authored one of the protest templates, claiming that votes had been reassigned to Nawrocki and alleging ballot rigging. Giertych and several experts have demanded a national recount and called for the presidential inauguration to be postponed in order to clarify the alleged irregularities. These experts assert that the previous nationalist government and outgoing president Andrzej Duda introduced reforms which have undermined the rule of law in Poland. The reforms have long put Poland at odds with the European Commission, but the victory of a pro-EU coalition in October 2023 parliamentary elections mitigated the conflict. Parliament speaker Szymon Holownia, like other members of the ruling coalition, has so far firmly rejected the idea of postponing the presidential oath ceremony. Independently, Bodnar has ordered a group of prosecutors to examine "irregularities" in the vote counting. "It is the prosecution's role... to inquire everywhere, where there is a suspicion of crime," Tusk said. sw/dt/jhb/bc/giv
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Democrats can weaponize the Supreme Court's recent rulings
In a string of cases Friday, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court handed the Republican Party win after win. The court restricted nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's order on birthright citizenship, greatly hindering the powers of lower federal courts to constrain the president. It allowed parents to opt their kids out of public school education that offended their religious upbringing. And it let the state of Texas require age verification before anyone looks at online porn. There is no question that each of these cases is a significant victory for conservatives in the short term. However, each also gives liberals an opening to try to accomplish their policy goals, but only if they are willing to be aggressive and break norms they've previously wanted to maintain. First, in the birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court's six Republican-appointed justices addressed a procedural question, not the issue of whether the president's order rejecting the idea of birthright citizenship is unconstitutional (even though it clearly is under the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutory law). On the procedural issue, the court held that lower federal court orders stopping the president's unlawful actions could apply only to the people who brought those cases. In other words, even if a president issues a plainly unconstitutional order, all lower courts can do is provide relief to the individuals who had the foresight and resources to sue in federal court. The order cannot apply to everyone else in the country. Yes, there are some exceptions. Cases can be brought as class actions, meaning a small number of people can bring the case on behalf of all other people in the country like them, but the court has spent the past two decades making such cases harder to bring. Also, states might be able to sue on behalf of their citizens and get nationwide relief under the theory that a citizen of, say, New Jersey, travels to other states and needs protection there. However, several justices have been skeptical of cases brought on behalf of others, so the future viability of such a strategy is unknown. Finally, never shy about giving itself more power, the Supreme Court said it can issue nationwide injunctions. However, the court's holding against universal injunctions from lower court judges is now the law of the land. And as a legal rule, in theory, this decision should apply in all cases regarding universal injunctions, not just cases brought against Republican policies. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized this in her dissenting opinion: 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.' Justice Sotomayor's tit-for-tat warning was directed at the justices in the majority, but it could also be seen as an invitation to Democrats willing to push boundaries. The next Democrat in the Oval Office or even Democrats now in charge of state governments can look at the Supreme Court decision and take new actions knowing that lower courts shouldn't have the power to issue nationwide or statewide injunctions stopping them. A health care directive promoting reproductive freedom? An executive order forgiving student loans? A state initiative that restricts gun sales? A vaccination requirement that some religious people object to? An environmental directive that might infringe on some business' claimed right? After Friday's decision, even if these policies are challenged before very conservative federal judges, those judges shouldn't have the power to stop these Democratic actions beyond just the parties to the case, no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional these judges believe them to be. Liberals can apply the same thinking to the Supreme Court's ruling about LGBTQ+ books and religious exemptions. In that case, the conservative majority said that schools that teach books that burden parents' religious beliefs violate the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise of religion. In order to avoid this, schools must offer kids an opt-out so they aren't forced to learn about gay marriage or trans people. Critics of the court's decision worry that parents might cite their faith to push back against books that include depictions of interracial marriage, women in the workplace or evolution. But liberals can have beliefs grounded in religion, too. Which means they, too, can throw a monkey wrench into the system on behalf of their liberal agenda. For instance, schools around the country are adopting 'Baby Olivia' videos to promote anti-abortion views. A religious family who believes bodily autonomy and women's rights are central to their religion can object and force the school to create an opt-out process. Finally, there's the age verification case involving online porn. In this case, the conservative justices said that while adults have the right to view pornography, minors don't. Thus, Texas is allowed to put what the majority of the court viewed as a minimal burden on adults — the online age verification process — in order to stop minors from viewing porn, even though some adults viewed the process as violating their privacy. Once again, liberals can play this game, as well. For instance, if Texas wants age verification for porn websites, California could require age verification for websites that sell or advertise guns. Sure, some or all of these actions might not survive the court's eventual scrutiny. Each of the doctrines at issue in these cases and hypotheticals have exceptions and complicated sub-rules. Moreover, if the Supreme Court doesn't care about law and cares only about furthering a conservative ideological agenda, it will find a way to rule against liberal causes and politicians while ruling for conservatives. But Democrats and liberals need to force the court's hand by using these supposedly neutral rules to push their own agenda. The court may be tilted ideologically against them, but that doesn't mean giving up ahead of time. Instead, they should use the tools given to them to accomplish their policy goals and dare the Supreme Court to display blatant hypocrisy by stopping them. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump's early termination of temporary protections for Haitian immigrants
A federal judge in New York has blocked the Trump administration's attempt to strip immigration protections from Haitians fleeing instability in their country. The ruling Friday from U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan preserves, for now, the Biden administration's 2024 extension of the protections, known as 'temporary protected status,' for up to 500,000 Haitians living in the United States. Cogan's 23-page decision is the latest legal development in the administration's efforts to roll back TPS designations and other immigration programs that allow immigrants from countries facing humanitarian crises to live and work here legally. In a separate case, the Supreme Court in May lifted a lower-court ruling and allowed the administration to revoke a Biden-era TPS designation for about 350,000 Venezuelans. Cogan's decision came just four days after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that the TPS designation for Haitians would expire effective on Sept. 2. Under the Biden administration's extension, the designation was scheduled to expire on Feb. 3, 2026. Cogan, an appointee of President George W. Bush, held that Noem's termination was unlawful because the government ignored provisions in the TPS statute that seek to provide early notice to recipients, including barring termination until a previous extension expires. The judge noted that Haitian TPS recipients have enrolled in schools, taken jobs and began medical treatment in reliance on the U.S. government's previous representations about the duration of the protections. 'When the Government confers a benefit over a fixed period of time, a beneficiary can reasonably expect to receive that benefit at least until the end of that fixed period,' Cogan wrote. 'Secretary Noem cannot reconsider Haiti's TPS designation in a way that takes effect before February 3, 2026,' the judge added. TPS designations are based on conditions in a particular country, including whether there is armed conflict, civil strife or widespread human rights violations. Noem said the 'environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home.' The State Department, meanwhile, advises Americans to 'not travel to Haiti due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited health care.' The Trump administration has sought to revoke immigration parole programs and protected status for more than a million people from countries including Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cameroon and Afghanistan.
