The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a copyright dispute because it lacked a quorum after five justices recused themselves for their own book deals, a move that was cheered by ethics watchdogs. (It also explains the rationale for expanding the court.) Via Forbes:
The Supreme Court said Monday it would not take up the case Ralph W. Baker, Jr. v. Ta-Nehisi Coates et al, a copyright dispute in which Baker alleged Coates’ book “The Water Dancer” plagiarized Baker’s book “Shock Exchange: How Inner-City Kids From Brooklyn Predicted the Great Recession and the Pain Ahead.”
The court said it lacked a quorum to hear the case, after five of the court’s nine justices—Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor—all recused themselves.
[…] Monday’s recusals are only the third time that justices have recused themselves from cases since the court adopted a new—non-binding—code of ethics in November 2023. Barrett recused from a case involving a childhood friend, and Gorsuch stepped down from hearing a case this term that stands to benefit billionaire Philip Anschutz, his friend and former client. The court’s code of ethics directs justices to recuse themselves from such cases, but doesn’t impose any penalties if they don’t.