Two Justices Clash on Congress’s Power Over Supreme Court Ethics; The New York Times, August 26, 2023

Adam Liptak , The New York Times; Two Justices Clash on Congress’s Power Over Supreme Court Ethics

"Congress has enacted laws that apply to the justices, including ones on financial disclosures and recusal. In a way, the most telling ethics legislation came from the first Congress, in 1789, requiring all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to take an oath promising “that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me.""

No, Justice Alito. Congress should not butt out on Supreme Court ethics.; The Washington Post, July 30, 2023

Ruth Marcus , The Washington Post; No, Justice Alito. Congress should not butt out on Supreme Court ethics.

"Since 1948, Congress has required federal judges — including Supreme Court justices — to recuse themselves from deciding cases in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Is that unconstitutional? Since 1978, it has required federal judges — including justices — to file financial disclosure forms. Is that unconstitutional? (The justices, including Alito, say they voluntarilyfollow those rules.) Since 1989, it has imposed strict limits on outside income and gifts for federal judges — including justices. Is that unconstitutional? Just last year, Congress amended the ethics rules to mandate that federal judges — including justices — promptly disclose their stock transactions. Is that unconstitutional?

Why would it be? The Alito argument, such as it is, proves too much. It would mean that Congress could not make it a crime for justices to accept bribes. And why would Congress have power to impose ethics rules on the executive branch but not on the judiciary — or are those unconstitutional, too?

We don’t want Congress punishing the court for issuing decisions with which lawmakers disagree. Respect for the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary counsels caution in this area. But it does not dictate hands off, no matter what Alito might wish."

The Supreme Court’s excuses for ethics violations insult our intelligence; The Hill, July 25, 2023

 STEVEN LUBET, The Hill; The Supreme Court’s excuses for ethics violations insult our intelligence

"The three justices’ hollow rationalizations display a patronizing expectation that the public will ultimately buy whatever they say, no matter how implausible. 

But to paraphrase the late Justice Robert Jackson: Supreme Court justices do not get the last word because they are infallible; they only believe themselves infallible because they get the last word. When it comes to judicial ethics, that has to change."

Supreme Court's Alito defends against ethics questions; Reuters via NBC, June 20, 2023

Reuters via NBC ; Supreme Court's Alito defends against ethics questions

"Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Tuesday published a commentary in The Wall Street Journal defending himself from questions about his ethical conduct raised in an article by news outlet ProPublica.

The commentary on the WSJ website addressed what Alito referred to as “charges” by journalists from ProPublica that he had failed to recuse from cases in which an entity connected to hedge fund founder Paul Singer was a party and to report certain gifts on mandatory annual financial disclosure forms, such as a private flight to Alaska for a fishing trip.

“Neither charge is valid,” Alito wrote."

Justice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads Its Readers; WSJ, June 20, 2023

 Samuel A. Alito Jr., WSJ ; Justice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads Its Readers

"The publication levels false charges about Supreme Court recusal, financial disclosures and a 2008 fishing trip."

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."