20-05-2025
Five Supreme Court Justices Sit Out Case in Rare Move
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
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@
