Four Justices Recuse From Petition By Publishing Companies And New Grant on Disparate Impact

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Blackman, J. (2026, October 19). Four Justices Recuse From Petition By Publishing Companies And New Grant on Disparate Impact. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/10/19/four-justices-recuse-from-petition-by-publishing-companies-and-new-grant-on-disparate-impact/

Dated from the outlet's own feed. Check the original for its byline.

Reason · collected 2026-10-19 · by Josh Blackman

Quick Summary

Four Supreme Court justices—Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson—recused themselves from considering a cert petition filed by major publishing companies including BMG Rights Management and Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. Due to these recusals, the court lacked a quorum to hear the case, resulting in the affirmation of the lower court's judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2109. The article speculates that the justices may have recused themselves due to personal financial interests from lucrative book deals, questioning whether such arrangements make practical business sense for the companies involved.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-10-19, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

As of October 19, 2026, four Supreme Court justices recused themselves from a petition filed by major publishing companies including BMG Rights Management (US) LLC, Capitol CMG, Inc. (UMG), and others. The case concerned limitations on the reversion of copyrights and was set to be heard by the court but lacked the necessary quorum due to the recusals. According to 28 U.S.C. §1, when a quorum is not available, the judgment is affirmed under §2109 with the same effect as an affirmance by an equally divided court. This decision affects strategic legal approaches for future cases involving copyright law.

Written for “Supreme Court Recusals Over Publishing Case” on 2026-10-19, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted verbatim and was checked against the article text before being stored, so you can find it in the original.
Reading Leans left (beta estimate) Confidence medium
Leaning: leans left for article 90963 (medium confidence, 2 verified quotes) · logged 2026-10-19

Story

📰 Supreme Court Recusals Over Publishing Case
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
24
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
21%
5 of 24 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-19 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 802 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Josh Blackman
72 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Justice Sotomayor, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
🔮 The regulations for Freedmen schools in Texas provided that classes would begin at 9 A.M. and "[t]he morning Exercises will commence with either the singing of an appropriate hymn, or prayer, or the reading of the Scriptures."
🔮 Kyle asks: Well, I don't know how much coverage of the court you read, but you may not be surprised to learn that one light motif is that you are brooding figure.
🔮 Just as there are no doubt those on the bench who have strong ambitions for future office, there are others who are happy to be public servants, but who would be just as happy earning their living by some other means.
2026-10-06 · assertive framing · Lurching Through The Audition Trap
🔮 "But within a relatively short period of time, the thought occurred to me, and I think to the others in the majority, that this would endanger us.
🔮 He could have served in government, but he didn't.
🔮 (Southwick's already fragile reputation would be irreparably tarnished by such a move.)
🔮 The conduct caused disturbances that would have resulted in violence had law enforcement not intervened.
🔮 "It follows that if the underpinning is removed, the increasing professionalism will also disappear.
2026-10-02 · assertive framing · Todd Butler's Problematic Publications
🔮 In December 2017, I wrote in National Review that Republican-appointed judges should consider taking senior status so President Trump could fill those seats.
2026-10-01 · assertive framing · When Judges Pick Their Law Clerks As Replacements
Also by Josh Blackman
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 72 articles by Josh Blackman →

Topics

28 U. S. C. § BMG Rights Management (US) LLC Capitol CMG, Inc. Court UMG

Subjects

Alito PERSON · 3× Court ORG · 3× BMG Rights Management (US) LLC ORG · 2× Capitol CMG, Inc. ORG · 1× Cyril E. Vetter PERSON · 1× Essential Music Publishing LLC ORG · 1× Paul Clement PERSON · 1× SONY ORG · 1× UMG ORG · 1× Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp ORG · 1×

Narrative

Today's order includes this entry: Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances "the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court."
framing: mixed · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-19
🔮 Justice Sotomayor, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Claims (24 extracted, 5 hedged)

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent Sophisticated clients develop comprehensive strategies to get a cert petition granted. asserted
petition → develop → strategies
The question presented concerned limitations on the reversion of copyrights. asserted
question → present → copyrights
Paul Clement was retained to represent many of the leading media companies. asserted
Clement → retain → companies
The Plaintiffs secured top-side amicus brief from heavy-hitters including Paramount (represented by Lisa Blatt), the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and more. asserted
Plaintiffs → secure → America
Everything was lined up for a cert grant. asserted
Everything → line → grant
Today's order includes this entry: Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances "the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court." asserted
case → include → court
Justice Sotomayor, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. asserted
Sotomayor → take → petition
The lower court judgment survives, and it is hard to imagine another case with the same parties would trigger a different outcome. asserted
case → survive → outcome
What happened here? asserted
What → happen → ?
I have to imagine that these four Justices, who all have lucrative book deals, recused because of either the parties identified, or the issue presented. asserted
who → have → parties
Curiously, Justice Alito who is a new publisher, did not step aside. asserted
who → step → ?
Going forward, these and other publishing companies need to be aware that they likely do not have a quorum for a cert grant. asserted
they → go → grant
However, they stand a good chance of having a favorable lower-court judgment affirmed by a quorum-less court. asserted
judgment → stand → court
I've often wondered whether it makes actual good business sense to give lucrative book deals to the Justices. asserted
it → wonder → Justices
Do they really ever earn back the advance or is it just an interest-free loan? asserted
it → earn → advance
Well, now that media companies may no longer be able to bring cases to the Supreme Court, that value proposition has become far more difficult. uncertain
proposition → bring → Court
We've seen how significant Justice Alito's recsual was in Suncor. asserted
recsual → see → Suncor
I think these media recusals may prove even more important to the business community. uncertain
recusals → think → community
And while Justice Alito, could divest those stocks, authors with book deals cannot cure the conflict. uncertain
authors → divest → conflict
But the Court re asserted
Court → re → ?
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must establish that the targeted racial group suffered an aggregate disparate impact relative to its share of the applicant pool. asserted
group → grant → pool
Here is the question framed in the petition: Whether a plaintiff alleging that a school district implemented facially-neutral admissions criteria for a racially discriminatory purpose must show that the criteria produced a disparate impact on the targeted racial group before a court may consider evidence of discriminatory intent. uncertain
court → frame → intent
The Court dropped the reference to discriminatory intent and added a focus on "aggregate disparate impact." asserted
Court → drop → impact
This case could now reflect an opportunity for the Trump Administration to advance its new policy concerning disparate impact. uncertain
Administration → reflect → impact
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support