Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan once again provided a reason for recusing herself from a case on Monday, just days before Senate Democrats plan to discuss a measure to enhance ethics standards on the high court.

Kagan, a liberal, recused herself from weighing in on a petition centering on a man who was convicted on one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, citing "prior government employment" at the Justice Department and her input in a brief against the petitioner's plea to a federal appeals court.

ELECTION OF GOVERNORS: GUBERNATORIAL RECORDS OF SIX 2024 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Late last month, Kagan offered a rare explanation for a recusal that prompted legal experts to ponder whether she might begin a new practice of transparency among the justices when they decline to hear a case.

But one week later, Justice Samuel Alito declined to follow suit after not participating in a dispute involving Phillips 66, likely due to his family's stock ownership in the energy company.

Monday marked the second time Kagan made a uniquely transparent decision to invoke her previous work as solicitor general as the reason for a conflict of interest that barred her from weighing in on a high court decision.

Legal experts previously told the Washington Examiner that Kagan's shift may have been telegraphed through a statement of principles the justices signed that was attached to Chief Justice John Roberts's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.

Roberts turned down Senate Democrats who were adamant about having him testify after a series of ProPublica reports revealed Justice Clarence Thomas had not disclosed a series of past trips paid for by Harlan Crow, a benefactor who is a well-known Republican donor. The outlet also revealed undisclosed real estate transactions between the pair, and that Crow paid tuition for one of Thomas's relatives.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will convene for a Wednesday hearing titled "Ensuring an Impartial Judiciary: Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and the Transparency Act of 2023," where the panel will interview professors about legislation that would require justices to adopt and follow a code of ethics with an "accountability mechanism."

Judiciary Democrats have engaged in a heated exchange with Crow's attorney, Michael D. Bopp, who in a letter last week told Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) the lawyer "would welcome a discussion with your staff" after several attempts to avoid testifying to the panel.

Durbin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who chairs the subcommittee that oversees federal courts, slammed Bopp's response in a joint statement last week, calling his letter "a clear, unwarranted refusal to cooperate with legitimate requests for information from this committee."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The letter from Bopp comes after Crow refused a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee to disclose information about his relationship with Thomas last month, writing that the panel doesn’t have the power to “investigate Mr. Crow’s personal relationship with Justice Clarence Thomas.”

The Washington Examiner contacted Bopp and the Senate Judiciary Committee for a response.