The ethical implications of President-elect Trump's call with Justice Alito; NPR, January 9, 2025

Michel Martin, NPR; The ethical implications of President-elect Trump's call with Justice Alito

"Alito and Trump spoke Tuesday, a day before the president-elect urged the Supreme Court to halt his Jan. 10 sentencing in the New York hush-money case, the justice said in a statement from the court. They did not discuss the case, however, Alito said.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: 

Donald Trump spoke with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Tuesday, just hours before the president-elect asked the top court to block his sentencing over his New York hush money case. Alito said in a statement that the two of them did not discuss the case or any others involving Mr. Trump or potentially involving him. Gabe Roth joined me earlier to talk about this development, which was first reported by ABC News. Mr. Roth founded Fix the Court. His group advocates for ways to make the federal courts more open and accountable to the public. Good morning. Thanks for joining us.

GABE ROTH: Good morning.

MARTIN: So let me give a picture of the call, as we understand it. Justice Alito said in a statement that one of his former law clerks asked him to take a call from Mr. Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position, in essence, to give him a job reference. What do you make of it?

ROTH: I mean, well, it's obviously an unmistakable breach of protocol. You have an individual and the president-elect, who is petitioning the Supreme Court related to his sentencing in the hush money case, a Supreme Court justice, who, frankly, should know better. This conversation should not have taken place. And someone like Will Levi, the man in question who's looking for a credential, he has plenty of other credentials. He worked for Mike Lee. He could have Mike Lee call. He could - he's worked - he's been a partner in the law. His dad's a former federal judge. His grandfather was the attorney general. So, you know, it doesn't make sense from his perspective, and it's just - this episode shows the justices don't really care about the ethics because they know that no one's going to stop them from doing whatever it is that they want to do.

MARTIN: Have any ethical rules or laws been broken here, to your knowledge?

ROTH: Laws - I don't see any laws having been broken, but, you know, there are certain protocols that if you are a Supreme Court justice, you really don't intermingle with the executive branch or the incoming executive branch. I mean, maybe you attend the State of the Union speech that happens every year, though Justice Alito famously stopped attending that. But generally, the two branches don't intermingle - and especially at a time when President Trump, we know, is going to have all these executive orders coming down the pike whose fate will be decided by the justices. This, to me, just seems like an opportunity for him to have an audience before one of the nine people determining his and his administration's fate in so many of these issues...

It's all self-enforcing and self-policing. So that is really, you know, sort of what the challenge is for people like me and other people who care about the ethics of our highest court is - how do you get the justices to act in a way that is sort of consistent with what most people would believe are their ethical responsibilities?"

Supreme Court Denies Trump’s Last-Ditch Effort to Avoid Sentencing; The New York Times, January 9, 2025

Ben ProtessKate Christobek and Adam Liptak , The New York Times; Supreme Court Denies Trump’s Last-Ditch Effort to Avoid Sentencing

"Four of the court’s conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — noted dissents without providing reasons."

Alito Spoke With Trump Shortly Before Supreme Court Filing; The New York Times, January 8, 2025

Adam Liptak, The New York Times ; Alito Spoke With Trump Shortly Before Supreme Court Filing

"Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. spoke with President-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday, not long before Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to delay his sentencing following his conviction in New York in a case arising from hush money payments.

Justice Alito said the call was a routine job reference for a former law clerk whom Mr. Trump was considering for a government position.

It was not clear, however, why Mr. Trump would make a call to check references, a task generally left to lower-level aides.

Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, an advocacy group that seeks more openness at the Supreme Court, said the call was deeply problematic given the ethics controversies swirling around the court in general and Justice Alito in particular."

Judiciary won’t refer Clarence Thomas, Ketanji Brown Jackson to DOJ over ethics; The Hill, January 3, 2025

ZACH SCHONFELD , The Hill ; Judiciary won’t refer Clarence Thomas, Ketanji Brown Jackson to DOJ over ethics 

"The federal judiciary’s policymaking body will not refer allegations that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson violated federal ethics laws to the Justice Department.

In identical letters sent Thursday to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who requested investigations into Thomas over ProPublica reports about free trips he accepted, the Judicial Conference raised questions about whether it even had the legal authority to make the referrals."

Only 35% of Americans trust the US judicial system. This is catastrophic; The Guardian, December 21, 2024

David Daley, The Guardian; Only 35% of Americans trust the US judicial system. This is catastrophic

"It’s not surprising that Americans have lost all faith in something as anti-democratic as an unelected body (with a majority appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote) granted lifetime fiefdoms to cast final judgement over acts of the elected branches, without any accountability or ethics code that might, for example, prevent them from taking luxury vacations paid by billionaire benefactors."

Senate review of Supreme Court ethics finds more luxury trips and urges enforceable code of conduct; AP, December 21, 2024

LINDSAY WHITEHURST, AP; Senate review of Supreme Court ethics finds more luxury trips and urges enforceable code of conduct

"A nearly two-year investigation by Democratic senators of Supreme Court ethics details more luxury travel by Justice Clarence Thomas and urges Congress to establish a way to enforce a new code of conduct. 

Any movement on the issue appears unlikely as Republicans prepare to take control of the Senate in January, underscoring the hurdles in imposing restrictions on a separate branch of government even as public confidence in the court has fallen to record lows.

The 93-page report released Saturday by the Democratic majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee found additional travel taken in 2021 by Thomas but not reported on his annual financial disclosure form: a private jet flight to New York’s Adirondacks in July and jet and yacht trip to New York City sponsored by billionaire Harlan Crow in October, one of more than two dozen times detailed in the report that Thomas took luxury travel and gifts from wealthy benefactors."

Justice Kagan elaborates on potential Supreme Court ethics code enforcement; NBC News, September 9, 2024

Lawrence Hurley, NBC News;  Justice Kagan elaborates on potential Supreme Court ethics code enforcement

"Justice Elena Kagan on Monday outlined how the Supreme Court's new ethics code could be improved if it had an enforcement mechanism, rejecting claims that the idea she has proposed would be ineffective.

The court, under pressure over claims of ethics violations mostly aimed at conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, issued a new code last year but it was immediately criticized for lacking any way of enforcing it.

Kagan, a member of the court's liberal minority, has called for creating a panel of lower court judges appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to handle allegations made against the justices."

Ginni Thomas Privately Praised Group Working Against Supreme Court Reform: “Thank You So, So, So Much”; ProPublica, September 4, 2024

Andy Kroll, ProPublica, and Nick Surgey, Documented , ProPublica; Ginni Thomas Privately Praised Group Working Against Supreme Court Reform: “Thank You So, So, So Much”

[Kip Currier: Res Ipsa Loquitur. Shame on those U.S. Supreme Court Justices (not all) who publicly and behind the scenes are working to oppose an enforceable ethics code; the same kinds of enforceable ethics codes that all federal judges are bound by. 

Ethics has a long history and important role in the preparation of law school students to join the legal profession. Upon their successful graduation from law schools and passage of bar exams for the states and courts where they seek to be licensed and practice law, new lawyers become officers of the court, sworn to uphold the rule of law. The importance of ethics is borne out by the requirement that licensed attorneys complete a specific number of ethics courses each year as part of the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit requirements set forth by the states and courts that grant their licenses and ensure that they are in compliance with professional development requisites. Moreover, the Model Rules for Professional Responsibility specify the ethics-centered requirements that govern and guide the conduct of attorneys. Adherence to these kinds of requirements and standards promotes attorney competencies, which in turn protects clients. Additionally, ethics-based standards promote transparency, accountability, integrity, and, perhaps most importantly to support and advance functioning judiciaries, public trust in the inherent fairness of lawyers, judges, and the U.S. legal system.

Why should the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, all of whom currently have life-time appointments, be held to a different, less stringent standard than all other members of the federal judiciary?

Why, too, should these individuals who have been entrusted to uphold the highest standards of the U.S. judicial and legal systems be held to lesser standards than any of the enforceable ethics code-bound officers of the court who make arguments before them in the august courtroom of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Any of the reasons and rationales that have previously been put forth by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas do not pass muster in the face of the ongoing damage that is being done to public trust in the integrity and impartiality of the U.S. Supreme Court through the appearances of impropriety of many of the Justices.

It is high time for the U.S. Supreme Court to proactively institute an ethics code that is enforceable and that can work to restore public faith in this vital branch of the U.S. government.

We as Americans also owe a debt of gratitude to members of the free and independent presses whose reporting serves as an essential check on our three branches of government, and whose work, at its best, can serve to promote the informed citizenries that are integral to healthy, responsive democracies.] 

[Excerpt from ProPublica]

"Thomas wrote that First Liberty’s opposition to court-reform proposals gave a boost to certain judges. According to Shackelford, Thomas wrote in all caps: “YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY JUDGES. CAN I JUST TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH.”...

On the same call, Shackelford attacked Justice Elena Kagan as “treasonous” and “disloyal” after she endorsed an enforcement mechanism for the court’s newly adopted ethics code in a recent public appearance. He said that such an ethics code would “destroy the independence of the judiciary.” (This past weekend, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she too was open to an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court.)

After the call, First Liberty sent a recording of the 45-minute conversation to some of its supporters. ProPublica and Documented obtained that recording."

Supreme Court Ethics Controversies: All The Scandals That Led Biden To Endorse Code Of Conduct; Forbes, July 29, 2024

Alison Durkee , Forbes; Supreme Court Ethics Controversies: All The Scandals That Led Biden To Endorse Code Of Conduct

"President Joe Biden endorsed the Supreme Court imposing a binding code of ethics on Monday, following a string of recent ethics issues the court has faced that have ramped up criticism of the court and sparked cries for a code of conduct from lawmakers and legal experts."

Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law; The Washington Post, July 29, 2024

Joe Biden , The Washington Post; Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law

"That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.

First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is noimmunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.

Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.

Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.

We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.

In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule."

Supreme Court ethics remain at center stage after hard-right rulings; The Washington Post; July 6, 2024

Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post;  Supreme Court ethics remain at center stage after hard-right rulings

"Several experts said the court needs to fully embrace an ethics overhaul to help reassure the public."

Biden Warns That Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Michael D. Shear , The New York Times; Biden Warns That Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump

"President Biden warned on Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity meant that there were “virtually no limits on what the president can do” and urged voters to prevent former President Donald J. Trump from returning to the White House freed from the constraints of the law.

“The American people must decide if they want to entrust the president once again — the presidency — to Donald Trump,” Mr. Biden said during brief remarks, “knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.”"

US Supreme Court liberals lament ruling making the president 'a king above the law'; Reuters, July 1, 2024

Will Dunham, Reuters ; US Supreme Court liberals lament ruling making the president 'a king above the law'

"The president of the United States has been elevated to the status of "a king above the law." The occupant of the White House may order assassinations of political rivals without fear of prosecution. America's leader may now be insulated from criminal consequences for whatever he or she wants to do in office.

That is what U.S. Supreme Court liberals said in dissent to Monday's landmark decision recognizing for the first time broad immunity from prosecution for former presidents."

The Trump Decision Reveals Deep Rot in the System; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Laurence H. Tribe, The New York Times ; The Trump Decision Reveals Deep Rot in the System

"The American people can still vote this November to reject what would be a devastating blow to the survival of government by and for the people. But whatever one believes about the likely outcome, we can and should also begin talk of amending the Constitution to repair these structural flaws. Whether Trumpism implodes later rather than sooner, we must remember that over the course of our history, we have made progress toward a “more perfect Union” only by imagining a better future and struggling to embody it in our fundamental law. Sometimes we’ve amended the Constitution after a national upheaval as convulsive as the Civil War. At other times, however, less traumatic events affecting the presidency, in particular, have prompted constitutional reform.

To repair the profound and growing problem of presidential unaccountability, we must dare to design a separate branch of government, outside the existing three, charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws."

The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

The Editorial Board , The New York Times; The Supreme Court Gives a Free Pass to Trump and Future Presidents

"As of Monday, the bedrock principle that no one is above the law has been set aside. In the very week that the nation celebrates its founding, the court undermined the reason for the American Revolution by giving presidents what one dissenting justice called a “law-free zone” in which to act, taking a step toward restoring the monarchy that the Declaration of Independence rejected."

Thomas and Alito took part in the case, despite calls for their recusal.; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Adam Liptak, The New York Times ; Thomas and Alito took part in the case, despite calls for their recusal.

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejecting calls for their disqualification, participated in the decision on the scope of former President Donald J. Trump’s immunity from prosecution.

Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices’ wives raised serious questions about their impartiality."

Supreme Court delivers big win for Trump on immunity: 5 takeaways; The Hill, July 1, 2024

REBECCA BEITSCH AND ZACH SCHONFELD , The Hill; Supreme Court delivers big win for Trump on immunity: 5 takeaways

"The majority’s decision provides a broad shield to former presidents for their conduct while in the White House."

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution; Fox News, July 1, 2024

 Brooke Singman , Brianna Herlihy, Fox News; Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority...

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, former President Trump said, "I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years, and now the courts have spoken." 

"This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll—by a lot—and we will make America great again," he said."

Historians, legal experts express dismay at Trump immunity ruling; The Roll Call, July 1, 2024

 Ryan Tarinelli, The Roll Call; Historians, legal experts express dismay at Trump immunity ruling

"Historians and legal experts warned Monday that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling opens the door to dangerous abuses of power and strikes against foundational American principles of accountability under the law...

Presidential historian and author Michael Beschloss was among those who referred to the idea that the decision cut against the intent of the nation’s founders.

“Thanks to Supreme Court today, Presidents in future will have access to far more unaccountable power than they ever have had in American history,” Beschloss posted on social media. “Founders wanted a President, not a King.”...

Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas governor who ran unsuccessfully in the GOP 2024 presidential primary, said the Supreme Court gave presidents greater control of the Justice Department. That’s because, Hutchinson argued, the decision says an “official act” that gets immunity includes threatening to fire the attorney general if he does not take an action.

“I can only imagine how this may be abused,” Hutchinson tweeted...

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a statement that the ruling “makes perfect sense to me” because core constitutional authorities must come with absolute immunity and other official acts will be determined by factual analysis.

“The Supreme Court’s dissent in this case is foolish in every way, particularly Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson’s argument that this decision allows a president to assassinate their opponent,” Graham said. “The liberal members of the Court and the Left have lost their minds when it comes to President Trump.”...

A White House official responded to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision by noting Biden has said “nobody is above the law.”

“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works,” spokesman Ian Sams said in an email. “We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down.”"

Justices 'fear for democracy' in dissent on Trump immunity; BBC News, July 1, 2024

Mike Wendling , BBC News; Justices 'fear for democracy' in dissent on Trump immunity

"Six conservative-leaning justices signed the majority opinion, but the three liberals dissented.

Led by Sonia Sotomayor, they expressed "fear for our democracy".

"Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Immune."

"Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

She was joined in her dissent by the court's two other liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan."