Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is stepping aside from a case on a railroad project after pressure from liberals.
In a letter, Gorsuch did not provide an explanation but hinted at a conflict of interest in the controversy, which has to do with the scope of environmental regulation under federal law.
Gorsuch's critics highlighted his past ties to an oil industry billionaire, Philip Anschutz, who has a stake in the case although he is not a party to the legal dispute.
A company owned by Anschutz filed a brief in the case urging the court to limit the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental reviews of every federal action.
"Because NEPA applies to every major federal action— including the authorizations Anschutz needs to develop federal oil-and-gas reserves—far more is at stake in this case than the 88-mile rail line in rural Utah," the brief says.
The case, which is going to be heard on Tuesday, concerns a proposed 88-mile rail line in eastern Utah that has faced opposition from environmentalists
More than a dozen Democratic lawmakers pushed Gorsuch to step aside over his ties to Anschutz, whom Gorsuch represented when he was an attorney.
Gorsuch confirmed that he will not participate, citing the Supreme Court's new code of conduct.
"I am writing to inform you that, consistent with the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Gorsuch has determined that he will not participate in this case," a letter from Gorsuch's clerk said.
Over the past couple of years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Democrats have brought mounting pressure on the court and its conservative members, who comprise a 6-3 majority.
Criticism has focused on two of the court's most reliable conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and their ties to billionaire donors.
Under pressure, the Supreme Court adopted an ethics code last year that works on the honor system, but Democrats have called for more stringent restrictions to be imposed directly by Congress.
While there is no evidence that the justices have conducted court business to please wealthy benefactors, it appears Gorsuch did not want to feed any more outrage by getting involved in this case.
Indeed, Gorsuch appears to be sending a message that the court can be trusted to regulate itself.
