Why the Supreme Court’s wasted time on ethics may cost it; CNN, November 1, 2023

Joan Biskupic, CNN; Why the Supreme Court’s wasted time on ethics may cost it

"Supreme Court justices, who have infinite power over American lives, have continually resisted calls for greater accountability in a formal code of conduct.

Some justices recently signaled that they might be ready to adopt a binding ethics code. But their record of inaction reflects the difficulty of compromise among the nine and suggests any real change may not come at their own hand.

The delay has had consequences.

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats plan to authorize subpoenas for three wealthy conservatives, including real estate magnate Harlan Crow, who has provided luxury travel and other gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas."

Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events; ProPublica, September 22, 2023

 Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott  Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica ; Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events

"The code of conduct for the federal judiciary lays out rules designed to preserve judges’ impartiality and independence, which it calls “indispensable to justice in our society.” The code specifically prohibits both political activity and participation in fundraising. Judges are advised, for instance, not to “associate themselves” with any group “publicly identified with controversial legal, social, or political positions.”

But the code of conduct only applies to the lower courts. At the Supreme Court, justices decide what’s appropriate for themselves.

“I can’t imagine — it takes my breath away, frankly — that he would go to a Koch network event for donors,” said John E. Jones III, a retired federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush. Jones said that if he had gone to a Koch summit as a district court judge, “I’d have gotten a letter that would’ve commenced a disciplinary proceeding.”

“What you’re seeing is a slow creep toward unethical behavior. Do it if you can get away with it,” Jones said."

Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel; ProPublica, August 10, 2023

 Brett Murphy and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica; Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel

"This accounting of Thomas’ travel, revealed for the first time here from an array of previously unavailable information, is the fullest to date of the generosity that has regularly afforded Thomas a lifestyle far beyond what his income could provide. And it is almost certainly an undercount.

While some of the hospitality, such as stays in personal homes, may not have required disclosure, Thomas appears to have violated the law by failing to disclose flights, yacht cruises and expensive sports tickets, according to ethics experts.

Perhaps even more significant, the pattern exposes consistent violations of judicial norms, experts, including seven current and former federal judges appointed by both parties, told ProPublica. “In my career I don’t remember ever seeing this degree of largesse given to anybody,” said Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who served for years on the judicial committee that reviews judges’ financial disclosures. “I think it’s unprecedented.”"

Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel

A Federal Judge Asks: Does the Supreme Court Realize How Bad It Smells?; The New York Times, July 14, 2023

Michael Ponsor, The New York Times ; A Federal Judge Asks: Does the Supreme Court Realize How Bad It Smells?

"All my judicial colleagues, whoever has appointed them, run into situations like these regularly, and I expect they have responded in just the same way. You don’t just stay inside the lines; you stay well inside the lines. This is not a matter of politics or judicial philosophy. It is ethics in the trenches.

The recent descriptions of the behavior of some of our justices and particularly their attempts to defend their conduct have not just raised my eyebrows; they’ve raised the whole top of my head. Lavish, no-cost vacations? Hypertechnical arguments about how a free private airplane flight is a kind of facility? A justice’s spouse prominently involved in advocating on issues before the court without the justice’s recusal? Repeated omissions in mandatory financial disclosure statements brushed under the rug as inadvertent? A justice’s taxpayer-financed staff reportedly helping to promote her books? Private school tuition for a justice’s family member covered by a wealthy benefactor? Wow.

Although the exact numbers fluctuate because of vacancies, the core of our federal judiciary comprises roughly 540 magistrate judges, 670 district judges, 180 appeals court judges and nine Supreme Court justices — fewer than 1,500 men and women in a country of more than 330 million people and 3.8 million square miles. Much depends on this small cohort’s acute sense of smell, its instinctive, uncompromising integrity and its appearance of integrity. If reports are true, some of our justices are, sadly, letting us down."

Don’t downplay Sonia Sotomayor’s poor conduct. Fix it.; MSNBC, July 13, 2023

 Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC ; Don’t downplay Sonia Sotomayor’s poor conduct. Fix it.

"The response from some liberal commentators has been to downplay the matter. They correctly point out that Sotomayor’s impropriety is minor in comparison to recent ethics scandals involving fellow Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have been lavished with vacations and gifts from billionaire GOP activists. But a purely comparative lens distracts from the problem. Once again we’re seeing that the Supreme Court has no guardrails against exploitation of power, whether large or small, liberal justice or conservative. And that makes ethics reform at the court even more necessary...

On yet another occasion, an aide said the number of books a library had purchased in advance of an event was “definitely not enough,” prompting library staff members to push back by saying it was a book publisher and bookseller matter...

Sotomayor’s recently revealed conduct isn’t even close to the worst of the things we’ve learned about how justices have inappropriately used their power. But an error is an error. That it’s a liberal Supreme Court justice doesn’t make me more inclined to dismiss it — it makes me less so: I expect more from people whose ideology should make them more vigilant against misuse of power. It’s a reminder that we need rules rather than blind trust to protect the public. The solution here is not to point the finger elsewhere, but to call with even more urgency for Supreme Court ethics reform through Congress."

The Supreme Court makes almost all of its decisions on the 'shadow docket.' An author argues it should worry Americans more than luxury trips.; Insider, July 7, 2023

Erin Snodgrass, Insider; The Supreme Court makes almost all of its decisions on the 'shadow docket.' An author argues it should worry Americans more than luxury trips.

"The decisions made on the shadow docket are not inherently biased, Vladeck said, but the lack of transparency stokes legitimate concerns about the court's politicization and polarization, especially as the public's trust in the institution reaches an all-time low.

"Even judges and justices acting in good faith can leave the impression that their decisions are motivated by bias or bad faith — which is why judicial ethics standards, even those few that apply to the Supreme Court itself, worry about both bias and the appearance thereof," Vladeck writes.

The dangers posed by the shadow docket are more perilous than the wrongs of individual justices, Vladeck argues, because the shadow docket's ills are inherently institutional." 

The One Ethics Rule the Supreme Court Needs Before Its Next Term; The Washington Post, July 3, 2023

Gabe Roth | Bloomberg; The One Ethics Rule the Supreme Court Needs Before Its Next Term

[Kip Currier: Interesting idea of "cooling off period" for U.S. Supreme Court Justices, as Gabe Roth describes: "If you’re a justice who, in the last 10 years, has received income, including book advances and royalties, from an individual, corporation, security or government office, and that entity finds itself before the court, recusal should be required."

It is absolutely appalling that these nine highest judicial arbiters in America are not out in front on this issue of U.S. Supreme Court ethics reform.

Shame on all nine of you for not speaking out on your ethical lapses and for not taking substantive action to make amends to the American people for whom you serve, to inspire greater public confidence in the vital roles to which you have been entrusted. Each one of you has a responsibility to avoid appearances of impropriety and to set the highest standards of judicial conduct and ethics.]

"What might be worse: Some court-watchers are insisting Thomas and Alito did nothing wrong in accepting their largesse. That’s a preposterous position considering the legal standard for bias, as summarized three decades ago by Justice John Paul Stevens: “The relevant inquiry […] is not whether or not the judge was actually biased but whether he or she appeared biased.” Put it another way, as the Code of Conduct for US Judges does: “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances […], would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.”...

Again, you don’t need to verify that X (a gift or free trip) led to Y (a specific outcome in a case). If the X is fishy, the specifics of the Y don’t matter much. And these days, SCOTUS smells like weeks-old salmon...

Ethics rules exist not so that public officials can come as close as possible to crossing the line and then generate a debate on the line’s contours. They’re not policies from which officials can cherry-pick certain phrases that they believe to be loopholes. They’re there to help navigate difficult questions with an eye toward maintaining public confidence. It’s clear the Supreme Court has strayed from that vision and needs help getting back on track.

It’s worth noting that although Thomas’s and Alito’s lapses are the most egregious, every justice currently on the court could be accused of some ethical failure...

Here’s my solution, and it’s not the uber-nonspecific “ethics code.” Instead, Congress should institute a hard-and-fast cooling off period for the justices."

The Tragedy of John Roberts; The New York Times, July 3, 2023

Jeff Shesol, The New York Times ; The Tragedy of John Roberts

"The chief justice is portrayed by some as a tragic figure, powerless to save his court from itself. But the tragedy of John Roberts is that he does have the power to restore some measure of the court’s reputation — he just hasn’t used it...

This term will likely be remembered as the year the Supreme Court, led by its chief justice, ended race-conscious admissions at the nation’s colleges and universities. But the larger story of this term has been one of ethical rot and official indifference...

But the appearance of impropriety cannot simply be waved away. It cannot be ruled inadmissible in the court of public opinion. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, we know it when we see it — and indeed, we have seen a good deal of it. Perhaps, behind the scenes, the chief is working toward reform. Perhaps he has admonished his colleagues, urged restraint. If so, he has failed. To redeem the reputation of his court, he must do more to put his house in order."

Documents reveal justices’ long-running tensions over ethics; The Washington Post, June 26, 2023

 Tobi Raji

, 

Theodoric Meyer

 and 

Leigh Ann Caldwell

, The Washington Post ; Documents reveal justices’ long-running tensions over ethics

"Newly released and previously unreported court documents that belonged to Justice John Paul Stevens, who led the marble palace’s liberal wing, show just how aware the justices were of charges that the appearance of impropriety could shake the public’s faith in the institution. They also show just how quick they were to push back against these concerns. 

The Library of Congress opened the papers to the public on May 2.

The issues the justices wrestled with back then echo the controversies engulfing the court today. Although the court often puts up a united front in public, the documents provide a rare glimpse into its inner workings and show that at least one justice — Stevens — found Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s rationale for not recusing himself from a major case to be insufficient."

Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court; ProPublica, June 20, 2023

Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica; Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court

"In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.

Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures. By failing to disclose the private jet flight Singer provided, Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts.

Experts said they could not identify an instance of a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties."

The US supreme court’s alleged ethics issues are worse than you probably realize; The Guardian, April 28, 2023

Moira Donegan, The Guardian; The US supreme court’s alleged ethics issues are worse than you probably realize

"Bad intent by the justices need not be present for the mere appearance of corruption to have a corrosive effect on the rule of law, and both Gorsuch and Thomas have allowed a quite severe appearance of corruption to attach itself to the court. Both have claimed that they are such intelligent and gifted legal minds that they should be given lifelong appointments of unparalleled power, and also that they have made innocent mistakes on legal forms that they are too dumb to understand.

The claim strains credulity. What it looks like, to the American people who have to live under the laws that the supreme court shapes, is that Thomas has long been living lavishly on the dime of a rightwing billionaire who wants rightwing rulings, and that Gorsuch conveniently managed to sell a house he didn’t want at the precise moment when he became important enough to be worth bribing.

The chief justice doesn’t seem very worried about this appearance of impropriety. In light of these alarming ethics concerns, Roberts’ curt rejection of the committee’s invitation to testify speaks to an evident indifference to ethical standards, or a contempt for the oversight powers of the nominally coequal branches. Ironically enough, his nonchalance has made the reality even more plain than it was before: the court will not police itself. The other branches need to show the justices their place."

Quid Pro Crow; Slate, April 14, 2023

DAHLIA LITHWICK AND MARK JOSEPH STERN, Slate ; Quid Pro Crow

"What mattered last week and what still matters this week is whether the Crow/Thomas dealings can be seen as classic quid pro quo (or perhaps quid pro Crow) corruption."

Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire; ProPublica, April 6, 2023

Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica; Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

"For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said."

Vermont is one of five states without a statutory code of ethics. A bill in the Senate seeks to change that; Vermont Public Radio (VPR), March 8, 2022

Peter Hirschfeld, Vermont Public Radio (VPR); Vermont is one of five states without a statutory code of ethics. A bill in the Senate seeks to change that

"Last month, a federal judge unsealed documents that showed former Gov. Peter Shumlin had accepted gifts and favors from the man who perpetrated the massive EB-5 fraud in the Northeast Kingdom.

Those documents, first covered by VTDigger, reveal that Shumlin’s aides flagged the favors — including free stays in a luxury New York City condominium — as a potential “problem.”

Shumlin’s general counsel, however, advised they needn’t be concerned from a legal perspective at least, because, according to an FBI summary of those conversations, “the state of Vermont does not have a statute regarding gifts, or a requirement for such disclosures.”

Vermont is one of only five states in the country without a statutory code of ethics."

Ginni and Clarence Thomas draw questions about Supreme Court ethics; ABC News, February 8, 2022

Devin Dwyer andGabriella Abdul-Hakim, ABC News; Ginni and Clarence Thomas draw questions about Supreme Court ethics

"There are no explicit ethics guidelines that govern the activities of a justice's spouse, experts say, but there are rules about justices avoiding conflicts of interest. Federal law requires federal judges to recuse from cases whenever their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Roth notes, however, that there is no independent enforcement mechanism in place; it's entirely up to the individual justice...

Members of Congress and outside experts say new enforceable ethics rules for the court are needed now more than ever. Even Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged in his 2021 year-end report that "public trust is essential, not incidental" to the court's function. ​

But Roberts opposes outside efforts to impose a new ethics code."

New York City mayor can hire brother, but only for $1, ethics board says; Reuters, January 27, 2022

Dan Whitcomb, Reuters; New York City mayor can hire brother, but only for $1, ethics board says

"A New York City ethics panel has agreed that Mayor Eric Adams can hire his brother as a senior security adviser, but only at $1 per year and with no power over department personnel.

The decision by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, made public on Thursday, follows an uproar that erupted after Adams sought to hire his younger brother Bernard as a deputy police commissioner at a yearly salary of $240,000."

In a year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasizes judicial ethics; NPR, December 31, 2021

ERIC MCDANIEL , NPR; In a year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasizes judicial ethics

"U.S. courts need to do more to ensure compliance with ethics rules — including rules that preclude a judge from presiding over cases in which he or she has a financial interest, Chief Justice John Roberts says in a year-end report on the federal judiciary.

Roberts was responding, in part, to an investigation by The Wall Street Journal which found that between 2010 and 2018, 131 federal judges ruled in cases involving companies in which they or their families owned shares of stock. 

Roberts said that while those amount to "less than three hundredths of one percent of the 2.5 million civil cases filed in the district courts" during that period, the federal judiciary must take the matter seriously.

"We are duty-bound to strive for 100% compliance because public trust is essential, not incidental, to our function," he wrote."

An unseemly meeting at the US Supreme Court raises ethics questions; Quartz, November 2, 2019

Ephrat Livni, Quartz; An unseemly meeting at the US Supreme Court raises ethics questions

"“A case isn’t finished until the opinion is out,” Roth noted. So, any meeting between a justice and an advocate who has expressed positions on a matter is problematic because it undermines public trust in the judge’s ability to be fair. He calls these engagements failures of a “basic ethics test” and is concerned about how commonly these failures occur...

Roth believes that everyone, whatever their political party or ideological tendencies, should be concerned about these kinds of engagements by the justices. And he doesn’t think it’s too much to ask that members of the bench not interact with the people and institutions who’ve broadcast their views in amicus briefs while those cases are open, if only to maintain that precious appearance of neutrality."

When it comes to this White House, the fish rots from the head; Washington Post, March 7, 2018

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post; When it comes to this White House, the fish rots from the head

"“Make no mistake about it, if Trump does not fire Kellyanne Conway after THREE Hatch Act violations another redline will be crossed,” tweeted Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics counsel during the Obama administration. “He will be saying breaking the law does not matter — I will pardon away any sins.” Eisen added: “Well, it does matter, and the American people will not tolerate it.” Richard Painter, who was George W. Bush’s ethics counsel, weighed in as well. “In any other White House, a single major ethics violation would result in dismissal,” he wrote on Twitter. “This is her third, and all three within the same year. She needs to go.” But we surely know she won’t — at least not for this.

The expectation of compliance with the law and concern about the appearance of impropriety are entirely absent from this administration for one very simple reason: Trump has set the standard and the example. Don’t bother with the rules. If caught, just make up stuff."

Letter to the Editor "Code Of Ethics", Press & Dakotan, July 13, 2017

Letter to the Editor, George Fournier MD, FACS, Yankton, Press & Dakotan,

Code Of Ethics

"With the current controversy surrounding the permitting of CAFOs [concentrated animal feeding operations] in Yankton County and concerns being voiced about the seeming unethical and almost subliminal way the commissioners and the zoning commission have relaxed zoning laws for proposed CAFOs, I asked the question: Is there a code of ethics and principles that Yankton County commissioners must adhere to in the performance of their duties as commissioners?

A Google search of the topic as well as a search of the county web site fails to specify the code. What is out there is a Commissioners Handbook, authored by the South Dakota Association of County Commissioners (SDACC). I read the second edition. The ethics section is on page 17.

Reading the section several times gives me the sinking feeling that there are potential ethical land mines faced by the commissioners. Two of the five commissioners are officers at a local bank, and a third is described in his bio on the commissioners’ website as, “He runs a diversified operations of alfalfa, soybeans, corn and hogs. Ray sits on many agricultural-related boards and is all about the future of the industry.” Really? Is he also all about the welfare of the citizens who elected him to office?

In the ethics section of the SDACC Commissioner’s Handbook on page 18: “… they should abstain from a vote on issues on which they would profit or enhance a relationship.” Clearly there are potential ethical issues facing our commissioners that need to be cleared up.

Should these three commissioners recuse themselves from voting on CAFO issues to avoid the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest? It is unsettling to think that Yankton County commissioners could be blatantly violating the code of ethics suggested by their association."