Congressman Johnson Leads Letter Urging Gorsuch To Recuse in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, sent a letter to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch urging him to recuse in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo. case due to conflicts of interest.

The letter was signed by 12 colleagues, including Reps. Jasmine Crockett, Raul Grijalva, Madeleine Dean, Steve Cohen, Cory Bush, Jared Huffman, Lloyd Doggett, Rashida Tlaib, Melanie Stansbury, Delia C. Ramirez, Nikema Williams, Summer Lee.

Read the letter HERE or below.

The Honorable Neil Gorsuch
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Justice Gorsuch:

We urge you to recuse yourself from any participation in the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo. Recent reporting exposed that you have a serious and obvious conflict of interest that demands your recusal.  In your prior career as a corporate lawyer, you were the long-time attorney for Denver-based billionaire Philip F. Anschutz and his network of companies for many years.   His business empire includes the Anschutz Exploration Corporation, an oil and gas discovery and development company which is a subsidiary of a larger company which he owns.  Mr. Anschutz, through his control of Anschutz Exploration Corporation and other companies which he either controls or is affiliated with, has a direct financial interest in the outcome of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo.

In addition to being the longtime lawyer who represented Mr. Anschutz and his companies, Mr. Anschutz has played a significant role in your ascension to your current position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In 2006, Mr. Anschutz successfully lobbied Congress and the George W. Bush administration for your nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  And Mr. Anschutz bankrolls the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, two right-wing special interest groups that groomed you for the bench.  The Federalist Society put you on the list that President-Elect Trump used to select you as his nominee for the Supreme Court.  And since you joined the Supreme Court, you have been feted with invitations to speak at exclusive dove-hunting retreats at Mr. Anschutz’s private 47,000-acre Eagles Next Ranch, where you enjoy the company of corporate elites with various interests before the Court while being lavished with luxury accommodations, exquisite meals, and entertainment–all on Mr. Anschutz’ dime.

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo. will decide whether environmental reviews of public lands projects must consider and disclose “indirect” and “cumulative” environmental impacts, such as climate change and the potential for oil spills.  Last month, the Anschutz Exploration Corporation, controlled by Mr. Anschutz,  filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to limit the scope of these “effects” analyses, which would directly impact Mr. Anschutz’s corporate profits.  The amicus brief publicly establishes your benefactor’s financial interest in the case before you, and his desired result. Your failure/refusal to recuse yourself from participating in the decision would further undermine public confidence and trust in the Court. Faith in the Supreme Court is already at record lows. Less than half of Americans say that they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust and confidence in the Supreme Court.  In order to preserve any remaining trust in the impartiality of the Supreme Court, you must do the right thing and recuse yourself from this case.

Canon 3B of the Supreme Court Code of Conduct states that “A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.”  Reasonable and unbiased people who are aware of the facts set forth herein cannot escape questioning whether you have an ability to be fair and impartial in deciding this case. While Canon 3B(4) provides that “amici and their counsel will not be a basis for an individual Justice to recuse,” we believe that your overarching duty to “maintain and observe high standards of conduct” to “preserve the integrity and independence” of the Court overrides the Court’s objective to be fully constituted when deciding cases before it.  Given the well-publicized facts of this case, your recusal should be mandated under the Code. When you were on the Court of Appeals, you were concerned enough about conflicts of interest that you recused yourself from cases related to Anschutz, “because [your] former client” was involved.  That same concern is warranted here, because Mr. Anschutz is a clear benefactor of yours and has signaled his financial interests in the case. Surely, your ethical standards as an Associate Justice on the highest court of the land would be no less than those you applied to yourself while you served on the Court of Appeals.

Our nation’s highest court should hold itself to the highest ethical standards. To show the American people that the Supreme Court is impartial, you must recuse yourself from any case that directly impacts the financial fortunes of Philip Anschutz, the man who was your previous legal client, who helped raise you to the Supreme Court, and who now treats you to lavish vacations on his exclusive 60-square-mile ranch.  You must do the honorable thing and recuse yourself from any decisions in the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo.

###