Justice Amy Coney Barrett has recused herself from a Supreme Court case involving St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, without providing an explanation. Her close friendship with Nicole Stelle Garnett, a key adviser to the school and her former colleague and neighbor, may have influenced this decision. Garnett has been a prominent advocate for religious charter schools and has ties to Notre Dame Law School's Religious Liberty Clinic, part of the school's legal team. The Supreme Court's first ethics code, introduced in 2023, emphasizes the justices' discretion in recusal matters amid concerns of conflict of interest, differing from stricter lower court policies. This development occurs against the backdrop of recent ethical scrutiny of the justices, highlighting the delicate balance between personal connections and judicial responsibilities.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett will not participate in the Supreme Court case concerning St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, leaving her seat empty during oral arguments and excluding herself from deliberations and voting.

Although Barrett did not specify her reasons for recusal, her longstanding friendship with Nicole Stelle Garnett, a Notre Dame Law School professor and adviser to the school in question, raises potential concerns of conflict of interest.

Garnett and Barrett share a personal history that dates back to their time clerking at the Supreme Court in the late 1990s, and they have been close neighbors and colleagues at Notre Dame, leading to intertwined family lives.

Garnett, not directly involved as a lawyer in the case, is a significant figure in advocating for religious charter schools and has collaborated with Notre Dame's Religious Liberty Clinic, which is part of St. Isidore's legal representation.

The Supreme Court's ethics code, established in 2023, allows justices to decide independently about recusal without a mandatory explanation, contrasting with stricter recusal policies for lower court judges.

The introduction of the ethics code followed revelations about undisclosed luxuries received by some justices, notably Justice Clarence Thomas, prompting a broader discussion on judicial transparency and integrity.

Debates within the court regarding recusal emphasize the justices' 'duty to sit' and the challenges posed by the absence of a replacement when a justice steps away from a case.