Justice Amy Coney Barrett sparks mystery with recusal in controversial case

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett gave no explanation for why she recused herself from a religious charter school case that was set to begin oral arguments Wednesday, The New York Times reported.

The case revolves around whether taxpayers should pay for a public school in Oklahoma that teaches Catholic doctrine.

With her recusal, Justice Barrett's Supreme Court seat will remain empty since she won't participate in oral arguments, deliberations, or a final vote. "Although justices sometimes provide reasons when they recuse themselves, they are not required to," according to the report.

That means the court's 6-3 conservative majority will be 5-3 for the vote on this case.

During his first term, President Donald Trump appointed Barrett, as well as Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh to give conservatives the upper hand.

The Times postulated that the recusal "may have to do with her close friendship with Nicole Stelle Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School who was an early adviser for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, the school involved in the dispute."

Also read: 'This is our shot': Dems believe MTG's new job gives 'golden opportunity' to destroy GOP

"The two clerked together on the Supreme Court in the late 1990s, and then became neighbors in South Bend, Ind., and colleagues for many years at Notre Dame. Their families are close, and Justice Barrett is the godmother to one of Ms. Garnett’s children," The Times reported.

Reporters Abbie VanSickle and Sarah Mervosh cited a provision in the court's first ethics code, enacted in 2023, over how justices determine when they "must step away from a case because of an actual or perceived conflict of interest."

They described the policy as "far looser than that for lower court judges," with each Supreme Court Justice deciding for themselves when they should step away from a case.

The ethics code was enacted after revelations that Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose luxury travels and gifts from billionaire friends.

Neither Garnett nor Justice Barrett commented for The Times's report.

Read The New York Times report here.