On Monday, March 23, 2026, Newsweek reported that two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, did not participate in separate decisions involving environmental and employment-related cases, with only one of the recusals aligning with a known pattern of financial conflicts.
According to the court’s order list, Alito took no part in the decision in Coleman v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., an employment-discrimination case in which the court declined to grant review after a lower court ruling against the plaintiff. While Alito did not publicly explain his absence, it follows a consistent pattern tied to his financial holdings.
Alito is known to own individual stocks, including investments in major energy companies. In past cases involving oil, gas, and petrochemical firms—particularly those linked to Chevron and its affiliates—he has recused himself due to potential financial conflicts. In one instance cited, Alito withdrew from Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, after it was confirmed that he held a financial interest in ConocoPhillips, a company connected to the litigation.
Although no explicit explanation was provided for his recusal in the Coleman case, Chevron Phillips Chemical is a joint venture involving Chevron, making his nonparticipation consistent with federal ethics laws requiring judges to step aside when they have financial interests in a party before the court.
In a separate matter, Gorsuch did not participate in the court’s decision to deny review in Glynn Environmental Coalition v. Sea Island Acquisition, a case involving wetlands in Georgia and questions about federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Environmental groups had sought to challenge a lower court’s application of a recent Supreme Court precedent limiting federal oversight of certain waters.
Unlike Alito, there is no clear or publicly documented reason for Gorsuch’s decision to abstain. The report noted no evident financial conflict, personal connection, or prior involvement that would explain his absence. Additionally, Gorsuch does not have a broader pattern of recusal in similar environmental or Clean Water Act cases.
Supreme Court justices are not required to explain their recusals, and decisions to step aside are made individually without external enforcement mechanisms. While federal law mandates recusal in cases of financial or personal conflicts, it does not obligate justices to disclose their reasoning publicly.
As a result, court order lists often simply note that a justice “took no part” in a case, without further detail. Critics, including legal scholars and ethics watchdogs, have raised concerns about the lack of transparency, particularly in high-profile cases.
Data cited in the report showed that between 2018 and 2023, justices recused themselves in about 3 percent of appeals, with most instances lacking any public explanation.
Source: Newsweek
