Tuesday round-up

Tony Mauro reports at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required) that “[t]wo U.S. Supreme Court justices said Monday they did not need to recuse themselves from participating in the recent cert denial of a case in which one of the parties was owned by United Technologies, a company whose stock they hold.” At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito “said there was ‘no way’ to know” about the conflict of interest because the respondent waived the right to respond to the petition, “meaning that under the court’s rules it didn’t have to file a corporate disclosure statement showing United Technologies’s ownership.”

Briefly:

• At the Human Rights at Home blog, Jeremiah Ho suggests that the court’s recent decision in Dunn v. Ray, in which the justices cleared the way for Alabama to execute a Muslim inmate after denying his request to have an imam in the execution chamber, reflects a willingness to “protect religion so long as that religion does not seem to displace or threaten the status quo.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!