On Thursday, September 25, 2025, Politico reported that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has indicated that she refrains from publicly explaining her recusals in ethics-related cases partly to shield her friends and family from potential unwanted public attention, threats, or worse. Barrett’s comments highlight the increasing concerns over the safety and well-being of judges and their families amidst a surge in threats.

Speaking at an event hosted by SCOTUSblog in Washington to promote her new book, Barrett addressed the varying practices among justices regarding explaining their recusals. She acknowledged that while some justices provide explanations, others, like herself, do not, citing potential costs associated with transparency in such matters.

Barrett, a Trump appointee, noted that many recusals stem from financial conflicts, which are already disclosed in public filings by all federal judges. She added that some recusals are due to routine reasons, such as a judge reviewing a case they previously handled in a lower court. However, she emphasized that more complex scenarios often involve the appearance of impropriety and can relate to a justice’s friends, family, or deeply held convictions.

Barrett highlighted the complexity of determining recusals, stating that identifying reasons for recusal requires consistency across the board. Her remarks followed a question about her recusal last year from a high-profile case concerning the constitutionality of religious charter schools. It is believed that Barrett recused herself due to her friendship with an advisor to organizers of the Oklahoma school involved in the case. The even split among the justices, with Barrett absent, resulted in a deadlock that upheld the lower court’s ruling against state funding for the school, leaving the broader legal issues unresolved.

While the Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with the liberal justices in several significant cases in recent years. Barrett has occasionally joined him and, at times, sided with the liberal wing, drawing criticism from some Trump supporters. However, Barrett dismissed the notion that she should be considered a swing justice, asserting that she approaches cases impartially and does not predetermine outcomes.

Barrett stated that she has learned to disregard criticism, but finds it frustrating when her rulings are attributed to her association with Trump rather than the legal merits of the case. She specifically mentioned the majority opinion she wrote earlier this year regarding nationwide injunctions.

During the discussion, Barrett twice mentioned instances where her family members received unsolicited pizza deliveries, which authorities interpreted as a potential threat, indicating that someone hostile to Barrett knew her family’s whereabouts. Around the same time, law enforcement also received an emailed bomb threat targeting Barrett’s sister in Charleston, South Carolina. Other judges involved in prominent cases have also received similar pizza orders. Explicit threats against judges spiked earlier this year, coinciding with President Donald Trump’s criticism of federal judges who ruled against his administration.

Barrett emphasized that she fears that explaining her recusals could inadvertently draw her friends and family into the spotlight or subject them to harassment. She acknowledged the demands for greater transparency at the Supreme Court, but maintained that protecting her loved ones from potential harm is a paramount consideration.

While Justice Elena Kagan began providing brief explanations for recusals two years ago, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson typically do so, other Republican-appointed justices generally do not.

In April 2023, all nine justices endorsed a statement of ethics principles that acknowledged the option to provide summary explanations of recusals, while also recognizing situations where doing so would be ill-advised. Subsequently, in November 2023, the high court adopted a formal ethics code for the first time, but it remained silent on whether recusals should be made public.

 

 

Source: Politico