The Supreme Court’s motto may be “equal justice under law.” But sometimes it seems more like “do as we say, not as we do.”

Consider Williams v. Pennsylvania, a case the court heard in February concerning whether a state judge should have recused himself from a capital case in which he had an earlier involvement. At one point during the hearing, Justice Elena Kagan, who participated in both Supreme Court lawsuits concerning the Affordable Care Act despite having served as solicitor general in the Obama administration, asked what would constitute “significant involvement” in a case — i.e., enough to require a recusal.

The answer to that question may not be obvious. But surely Justice Kagan’s experience in the Obama administration constituted “significant involvement” in the Affordable Care Act cases. In the end, a majority of justices, including Justice Kagan, ruled in Williams v. Pennsylvania that the judge who refused to recuse himself should have stepped aside.

So went another case in what I call the court’s self-referential docket. Each year, the justices hear a handful of suits that have parallels with how they act as stewards of their institution. But instead of changing their own practices in light of their holdings in these cases, the justices too often carry on as before, as if they can play by their own rules when it comes to transparency and accountability.