Can the supreme court be deadlocked?

[doubled]

Has there ever been a case where the supreme court was deadlocked? Say, one of the justices had to recuse himself for a case because he knew the defendant, or maybe the case came up while there was an open vacancy on the court. What would happen if the remaining eight justices split 4-4? Has this even happened?

[CynicalGabe]

Yes, there have been cases. In the case of a tie, the lower court’s decision will stand.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

If they deadlock 4-4 (for the reasons you stated above), the lower appellate court ruling stands. From the ubiquitous Wiki:

It is possible that, through recusals or vacancies, the Court divides evenly on a case. If that occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but does not establish binding precedent. In effect, it results in a return to the status quo ante. For a case to be heard, there must be a quorum of at least six justices. If, because of recusals and vacancies, there is no quorum to hear a case and a majority of qualified justices believes that the case cannot be heard and determined in the next term, then the judgment of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been evenly divided. For cases brought directly to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a United States District Court, the Chief Justice may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

What would happen in the event of a 4-4 tie in one of the rare cases where the Court has original jurisdiction? Has this ever happened?

[ElvisL1ves]

They can put off hearing the case until the vacancy is filled.

[R.P.McMurphy]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
They can put off hearing the case until the vacancy is filled.
[/QUOTE]

What if one judge had to recuse due to conflict of interest and there was no foreseeable change in the makeup of the court?

[Polycarp]

[QUOTE=Spartydog]
What if one judge had to recuse due to conflict of interest and there was no foreseeable change in the makeup of the court?
[/QUOTE]

No Supreme Court justice has to recuse himself from any case. It’s a matter of personal ethics to do so.

However, the Court ordinarily does not sit to hear an original jurisdiction case ab novo– normal procedure is to appoint a Special Master to sit as a “trial court” of sorts, obtaining the factual evidence and arguments. I believe he ordinarily recommends a ruling based on the evidence and law before him – which of course the justices are not bound to abide by.

My hunch, however, is that if the prospect of a 4-4 tie on an original jurisdiction case loomed:

1. The justice who was expected to recuse himself would sit, making every effort to judge equitably and not in accord with his personal interests; or

2. If my presumption about a recommended judgment is correct, the judgment of the Special Master would stand as the court’s judgment, in like manner to what happens on ties in certiorari cases.

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=Spartydog]
What if one judge had to recuse due to conflict of interest and there was no foreseeable change in the makeup of the court?
[/QUOTE]
Picture a black-robed version of Rock-Paper-Scissors.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Spartydog]
What if one judge had to recuse due to conflict of interest and there was no foreseeable change in the makeup of the court?
[/QUOTE]

Russian Roulette, baby.