Are SCOTUS justices required to recuse themselves when their appointment is after briefs have been filed in the case?
<p>Yesterday, the US Supreme Court announced a schedule change for <em>Gloucester School Board v. G.G.</em>, which would push the due date for respondent's merits brief as far back as Febuary 23, 2017. The website <em>SCOTUSBlog</em> notes that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>under the revised schedule it would not be slated for oral argument until the court’s March sitting (which begins on March 20) or possibly even the April sitting (which begins on April 17) – increasing the chances that a ninth justice may have taken the bench by the time the case is argued.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is there any rule regarding how late in a case a new justice can join tp participate in the decision?</p>

<p>The custom, as I understand it, is that a justice does not participate in cases unless that justice was present for oral argument. (I am not sure if this is firm enough to be called a rule.) In some instances, cases have been re-argued to that an absent justice could participate.  This situation most often occurs when a case is deadlocked 4-4 that was argued before a new Justice was seated. In that situation, if there is no other reason for the new justice not to participate, the Court may well order the case to be re-argued, usually in a later term than the original argument.
When Justice Black dies and Justice Harlan resigned, a number of cases scheduled for argument were postpoened until new Justices were seated (these proved to be Justices Powell and Rehnquist). See <em>The Brethren</em> by Woodward and Armstrong, p 185.</p>

united-states us-supreme-court federal-courts