Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from an environmental case involving a former client of his, billionaire Philip Anschutz, after Democrats said he had a conflict of interest.
Anschutz is not directly involved in the case, but filed a brief arguing that his company, Anschutz Exploration, would be affected by the outcome.
Early in Gorsuch's career, he represented Anschutz and reportedly has close ties with him.
After reviewing the court's newly adopted code of conduct, Gorsuch said he would not adjudicate the case.
He didn't really give a reason for his recusal but published the announcement on his website.
The case is about whether to consider the environmental impacts of oil and gas production and refining when deciding whether to build a railway line in Utah.
The other eight justices will decide whether federal environmental reviews are warranted in such projects.
The recusal is ammunition the justices can use about the new code of conduct being effective as a self-policing mechanism.
Democrats had argued that it lacked any method of enforcement and that legislation codifying it should be passed, but it seems to be working in this case.
When Gorsuch was an appeals court judge, he recused himself from several other cases involving Anschutz.
The author of the letter by the Democrats asking for Gorsuch's recusal, Rep. Hank Johnson (GA) took credit for the recusal in this case, however.
"I applaud Justice Gorsuch for doing the right and honorable thing," Johnson said in a statement. “It is important that the court show the public that it is not in the pocket of billionaire benefactors."
But much of the Democrats' indignation seems misplaced, since Gorsuch was refusing himself from cases with Anschutz long before that letter.
It only makes sense that the nation's most powerful jurists would have ties to other wealthy and powerful people, and courts have been dealing with such conflicts for many years before any laws were made about it.
