Supreme Court Embraces Tool to Flag Stock, Other Conflicts (1)

The US Supreme Court will begin using a new automated process to flag potential conflicts over stock ownership and other issues that could require recusal.

The court said Tuesday it will begin using software developed in-house to run automated recusal checks. The software will compare information about parties and attorneys in the case with lists created by each justice’s chambers.

The change, which takes effect March 16, grew out of court adoption of its first-ever code of conduct in response to ethics controversies that undercut its standing with the public.

As part of the code adopted in 2023, Chief Justice John Roberts directed court staff to study whether the court could implement automated recusal checks, similar to systems used in some lower federal courts.

Under new rules, attorneys filing with the court will also be required to include additional information about parties involved in the proceeding, along with their respective stock ticker symbols if they are publicly traded companies.

Stock ownership over the years as been a cause for recusal. But now only Roberts and Samuel Alito or their families hold shares in publicly traded companies, according to financial disclosures.

Alito has reported stakes in more than two dozen companies during his tenure on the court. He recused from a case involving the oil industry in January due to holdings in ConocoPhillips, the parent company of one of the parties. Roberts owns shares in two companies.

Gabe Roth, executive director of the watchdog Fix the Court, called the change a “net positive” that shouldn’t have taken so long to adopt.

“If the justices wanted to institute a more effective change related to their ethics and their investments, they’d agree as a court not to hold any stocks during their tenures, since all it does is cause unnecessary recusals,” he said in a statement.

Justices mainly recuse for other reasons, including matters they heard while on lower courts and past or current ties to parties seeking review.

Last year, five justices recused themselves from hearing Baker v. Coates, which involved plagiarism accusations. While the justices did not explain their recusal, the parent company of Penguin Random House, which has published books by four sitting members of the court, was a defendant in the case.