Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito Sit Out Supreme Court Decisions
Source: Newsweek
Published. Jun 08, 2026 at 12:17 PM EDT updated Jun 08, 2026 at 12:18 PM EDT
Two U.S. Supreme Court justices declined to take part in decisions released Monday tied to federal appeals cases around a firearms conviction and pensions payments. Conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito each sat out separate matters connected to lower-court rulingsmoves that were not formally explained but align with long-standing judicial practice aimed at avoiding potential conflicts.
What Happened
Barrett recused herself from a decision tied to a Seventh Circuit case involving federal inmate Eural Black, while Alito did not participate in a Fourth Circuit-related case concerning a retirement benefits dispute between a former employee and companies linked to DuPont and Corteva.
In the Black case, the Seventh Circuit ruled that a man serving a lengthy sentence tied to "stacked" firearm convictions could not secure a reduction based on changes made by the First Step Act. Black argued that the gap between his sentence and what he would receive today should qualify as an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for early release. The court held that its own precedent still barred using those sentencing reforms as a basis for compassionate release, even after a new policy from the U.S. Sentencing Commission suggested otherwise.
In the other case, Gasper v. EIDP, Inc., the Fourth Circuit sided with corporate defendants in a dispute over pension payments. Plaintiff David Gasper argued his monthly retirement benefit had been improperly reduced following his divorce, but the court found the plan administrators method of spreading the cost of a survivor benefit across the total pension was valid. The Fourth Circuit also rejected Gaspers claim for penalties over delayed document disclosures, finding no evidence of harm or bad faith. Both appellate rulings were affirmed, meaning the lower court decisions stood in full.
Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-samuel-alito-sit-out-supreme-court-decisions-12044858
Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)
wcmagumba This message was self-deleted by its author.
quakerboy
(14,919 posts)When a judge has a conflict of interest, they should definitely sit it out.
This is probably the most responsible, ethical thing either of these judges will do while on the court.
tazcat
(315 posts)onenote
(46,280 posts)First, recusals are not unheard of, particularly at the petition for certiorari stage. Even more to the point, Alito's recusal in the EIDP case wasn't even on a wphether to grant or deny a etition for certiorari. It merely was on a motion for leave to file a petition for certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal -- which was granted.
As noted, such recusals aren not unusual. For example, on May 26, Jackson and Alito each recused themselves from decisions on whether to grant or deny a petition for certiorari and Kagan recused herself from a decision on whether to grant rehearing of a case.
BumRushDaShow
(172,814 posts)It goes back to 2014 (and their earliest entries that say "FTC not founded yet" is referring to their own organization,"Fix The Court" and not the "Federal Trade Commission" ).