Welcome to the Supreme Court, where corruption has no meaning; The Washington Post, June 22, 2023

 Paul Waldman , The Washington. Post; Welcome to the Supreme Court, where corruption has no meaning

"There are two seminal rulings that show how the court has altered the relationship between public officials and the ultrawealthy who want things from them: The first is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which — along with a series of subsequent casesthat opened the floodgates to ever-increasing political spending — insisted that we shouldn’t worry about the corrupting influence of all that money.

The second was McDonnell v. United States (2016), in which the court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell, who had accepted $175,000 in gifts and loans — including a $20,000 shopping spree for his wife, the use of a Ferrari and a Rolex watch — from a donor who was seeking the state’s help in promoting his business. The court ruled that since McDonnell only partially came through for the donor — he set up a series of meetings with the donor and other officials — he hadn’t taken “official acts” in exchange for the money and gifts, and therefore he was innocent. More cases dismissing corruption accusations followed.

“This court majority has put in place a radically diminished notion of what corruption is,” said Michael Waldman, head of the Brennan Center for Justice and author of a new book on the Supreme Court. “There’s an ideology that rich people throwing their money around in a way that benefits these officials is not corrupting unless you have a receipt showing ‘I admit to receiving a bribe.’”

The result is a world in which the ultrawealthy face few constraints in developing problematic relationships, and those they want to influence, whether judges or politicians, can enjoy the fruits of their generosity unfettered by pesky rules and regulations."

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."

The largely forgotten book ban case that went up to the Supreme Court; The Washington Post, May 20, 2023

Anthony Aycock, The Washington Post ; The largely forgotten book ban case that went up to the Supreme Court

"Record efforts to ban books are fueling fights in Texas, Virginia and across the country. Just this week, a group including free-speech advocates, authors, parents and the publisher Penguin Random House filed a federal lawsuit against a Florida school district over the removal of books covering gender and LGBTQ issues.

Yet only one previous case of a library book ban has ended up before the Supreme Court: Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico. And, outside law school classrooms, it has largely been forgotten."

This Obscure Judicial Agency Could Tighten Ethics for Justices; Bloomberg Law, June 14, 2023

 Sheldon Whitehouse, Bloomberg Law; This Obscure Judicial Agency Could Tighten Ethics for Justices

"As the justices drag their feet on making changes, a little-known agency within the judicial branch of government could have an outsize role in ethical reform. The Judicial Conference of the United States administers laws that Congress has passed regarding judicial ethics. In administering those laws, the Judicial Conference has statutory power to set up rules and procedures that govern both judges and Supreme Court justices.

By statute, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court chairs this body, which comprises chief judges from the circuit courts of appeals and judges from district courts within each circuit.

The Judicial Conference, established by Congress in 1922, meets twice a year to consider policy issues affecting the judiciary, including ethical issues. For example, the Judicial Conference amended the Judicial Code of Conduct in 2019 following allegations from judicial clerks that the federal judiciary needed to do more to protect against workplace harassment.

Contrary to what Supreme Court justices suggested in their recent “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices,” this power is crystal-clear, and the Supreme Court has long abided by it.

The chief justice’s recent public statement that more needs to be done on Supreme Court ethics signals an important opening for the Judicial Conference, the judiciary’s rule-setter in many of these areas."

Law Professors Testify on Supreme Court Ethics; C-SPAN, June 14, 2023

C-SPAN; Law Professors Testify on Supreme Court Ethics

"Law professors testified on Supreme Court ethics before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts. This hearing followed a ProPublica investigative report revealing Justice Clarence Thomas potentially violated financial disclosure requirements after receiving trips and other things of monetary value from billionaire and Republican donor Harlan Crow. Both men have denied wrongdoing and stressed they’ve been friends for many years. This ProPublica report set off a nationwide debate on Supreme Court ethics."

If the Supreme Court Won’t Fix Its Ethics Mess, Congress Should; The New York Times, June 12, 2023

 Erwin Chemerinsky, The New York Times; If the Supreme Court Won’t Fix Its Ethics Mess, Congress Should

"Congress should not wait on the court any longer. It has the authority to hold justices to a code of conduct. If it fails to do so, it will share responsibility for the ethics mess at the Supreme Court...

The case for the Code of Conduct for federal judges is made succinctly in its first sentence: “An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.” That should apply equally to the nation’s highest court."

Chief Justice Says Supreme Court Is Working to Address Ethics Questions; The New York Times, May 24, 2023

 Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Chief Justice Says Supreme Court Is Working to Address Ethics Questions

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said on Tuesday night that he and his colleagues on the Supreme Court were continuing to take steps to address questions about the justices’ ethical standards amid a barrage of allegations of misconduct and a push by some lawmakers to tighten the rules.

“I want to assure people that I am committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct,” he said. “We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment, and I am confident that there are ways to do that consistent with our status as an independent branch of government and the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

Chief Justice Roberts turned down an invitation last month to testify before a Senate committee, citing the “exceedingly rare” nature of such an appearance, as lawmakers push for ethics changes at the court. A series of revelations about unreported gifts, travel and real estate deals between Justice Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow, a Texas billionaire and Republican donor, has shaken the court, though all nine justices have defended their existing rules."

Supreme Court Justices Don’t Like Being Criticized in Public, Which Is a Good Reason to Keep Doing It; The New York Times, May 23, 2023

Stephen I. Vladeck, The New York Times ; Supreme Court Justices Don’t Like Being Criticized in Public, Which Is a Good Reason to Keep Doing It

"We will all disagree as to whether public criticism of the court in specific contexts is fair. But what can’t be denied is that public pressure on the court has been, both historically and recently, a meaningful check on the institution’s excesses — and an essential means by which the public is able to hold unelected and otherwise unaccountable judges and justices to account.

In the case of the shadow docket, it has led the court to tamp down its aggressiveness and try to provide more explanations for its less justified interventions. In the hotly debated case of ethics reform going on now, all nine justices have already publicly committed to following at least broad ethical norms. The court can go further, and it can (and should) adopt formal internal mechanisms to enforce whatever rules the justices agree to bind themselves to — much in the way that internal inspectors general hold both the executive and legislative branches to account.

The point is not that any one set of reforms is a magic bullet. Rather, it is that a court whose legitimacy depends at least to some degree on public support is not, should not be and never has been immune to criticism and pressure from the same public."

A Crisis of Ethics at the Supreme Court; The New York Times, May 8, 2023

Adam Liptak, The New York Times ; A Crisis of Ethics at the Supreme Court

"Debate about ethical standards for Supreme Court justices has intensified after a series of revelations about undisclosed gifts, luxury travel and property deals.

Adam Liptak, who covers the court for The Times, reviews the allegations of misconduct and the growing calls to do something about it."

The Supreme Court ethics mess is today’s Watergate. Let’s treat it that way; The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 7, 2023

 Will Bunch,  The Philadelphia Inquirer; The Supreme Court ethics mess is today’s Watergate. Let’s treat it that way

"Democrats, or anyone else who cares about American democracy, need to turn up the knobs, considerably. For one thing, lawmakers, journalists, and the broader public need to understand that these ethical breaches aren’t coincidental, but all connected to a bigger conspiracy; the right’s determination to control the court as a check on democracy and our fundamental rights. Conservative kingmakers like Crow or the Federalist Society’s Leo want to offer like-minded justices — who make $285,400 a year — a billionaire’s lifestyle. These rainmakers want to keep Thomas and his fellow justices from either retiring or drifting leftward by enveloping them in a bubble of unthinkable opulence and personal wealth, where the only voices they hear are the pro-business prattle of the billionaire chewing on steak next to them."

Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.; ProPublica, May 4, 2023

 Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica; Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.

"“The most reasonable interpretation of the statute is that this was a gift to Thomas and thus had to be reported. It’s common sense,” said Kathleen Clark, an ethics law expert at Washington University in St. Louis. “It’s all to the financial benefit of Clarence Thomas.”

Martin, now in his 30s, told ProPublica he was not aware that Crow paid his tuition. But he defended Thomas and Crow, saying he believed there was no ulterior motive behind the real estate magnate’s largesse over the decades. “I think his intentions behind everything is just a friend and just a good person,” Martin said.

[After this story was published, Mark Paoletta, a longtime friend of Clarence Thomas who has also served as Ginni Thomas’ lawyer, released a statement. Paoletta confirmed that Crow paid for Martin’s tuition at both Randolph-Macon Academy and Hidden Lake, saying Crow paid for one year at each. He did not give a total amount but, based on the tuition rates at the time, the two years would amount to roughly $100,000.

Paoletta said that Thomas did not have to report the payments because Martin was not his “dependent child” as defined in the disclosure law. He criticized ProPublica for reporting on this and said “the Thomases and the Crows are kind, generous, and loving people who tried to help this young man.”]"

The Supreme Court’s Ethics Issues Are Not All Created Equal; Slate, May 3, 2023

DAHLIA LITHWICK AND MARK JOSEPH STERN, Slate; The Supreme Court’s Ethics Issues Are Not All Created Equal

"In fact, arguably no one stands to benefit from a clear set of standards more than the justices. When a public official is accused of misconduct, their best defense is always: “I followed the rules.” That response becomes unavailable when there are no rules, or when the rules require tasseography to understand. Nor is it possible to gauge just how far a justice stretched the rules when there is no baseline standard for comparison."

Why Supreme Court ‘ethics’ legislation would do more harm than good; The Washington Post, April 28, 2023

Jason Willick, The Washington Post ; Why Supreme Court ‘ethics’ legislation would do more harm than good

"Lower courts have a formal process for fielding complaints of judicial misconduct, because lower-court judges can be censured or temporarily suspended from cases by panels of fellow judges. The Supreme Court is different — it does not, by definition, answer to other courts, so any code of conduct would be unenforceable within the judicial branch. Accountability at the highest levels of the executive and judicial branches must come from the political process: impeachment. By installing a permanent investigative bureaucracy to scrutinize the Supreme Court, the Senate legislation would warp constitutional lines of authority."

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."

Senators to introduce bill aimed at strengthening ethical guidelines in the Supreme Court; CNN, April 26, 2023

Lauren Fox and Shawna Mizelle,, CNN ; Senators to introduce bill aimed at strengthening ethical guidelines in the Supreme Court

"A bipartisan pair of senators will introduce legislation on Wednesday that aims to implement new ethics standards on the Supreme Court, though it would still grant the high court extensive power to police itself.

The “Supreme Court Code of Conduct Act,” to be introduced by Independent Maine Sen. Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats, and Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, would require the nation’s highest court to enact its own code of conduct within a year of the bill passing. 

Under the legislation, the court would have the power to “initiate investigations as needed to determine if any Supreme Court justices or staff may have engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that violates other federal laws or codes of conduct.” 

The legislation would also require the court to lay out the rules on its website, name an official to handle complaints about violations of those rules (which could come from anyone including the public), and then require that official to publish an annual report chronicling actions taken in response to any of those complaints."

Chief Justice Roberts declines Sen. Durbin request to testify on ethics; The Washington Post, April 25, 2023

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; Chief Justice Roberts declines Sen. Durbin request to testify on ethics

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told Senate leaders Tuesday he would “respectfully decline” to testify at a Senate hearing focused on the Supreme Court, offering instead a statement signed by all the justices in which they “reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and practices” to which they abide.

There did not seem to be new proposals or guidelines in the “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices.” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) immediately labeled it insufficient, noting recent revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas that the senator said illustrate the need for more scrutiny.

“I am surprised that the Chief Justice’s recounting of existing legal standards of ethics suggests current law is adequate and ignores the obvious," Durbin said in a statement." 

Why doesn’t the Supreme Court have a formal code of ethics?; Poynter, April 17, 2023

 Matthew Crowley, Poynter; Why doesn’t the Supreme Court have a formal code of ethics?

"Enforcement questions

Steven Lubet, an emeritus law professor at Northwestern University, said enforcing any code would be challenging.

“There is no enforcement mechanism in the current … situation, in which the justices say they voluntarily follow gift disclosure and other rules,” Lubet said.

Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at the New York University School of Law, wondered whether the court would accept a code and whether Roberts would enforce it if the justices objected to its tenets.

“What buy-in would the court need to adopt a code that binds all justices?,” he asked. “Who would enforce it? Lower court judges whose opinions the justices review? Not likely to work. Or will the court as a whole pass on the conduct of a fellow justice? Will that be credible?”

Gillers said he doubted the recent outcry over Thomas would force the court to change.

“Six months ago, I would have rated it as very unlikely (1 in 20) that the court will adopt its own code; I think the Court would not want to be seen to react to public pressure,” he said. “Now, after the latest Thomas story, I think it is just unlikely (1 in 4/5) but increasingly possible.”"

Roberts invited to testify at Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics; NPR, April 20, 2023

Dustin Jones, NPR ; Roberts invited to testify at Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics

"The chair of the Senate Judiciary committee has invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify at a hearing next month focused on the ethical rules governing the Supreme Court as well as potential changes to those guidelines. 

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. said in a letter to Roberts on Thursday that recent reports found the justices are "falling short" of the ethical standards they and other public servants are supposed to follow. 

"The status quo is no longer tenable," Durbin wrote.

The call for Roberts' testimony comes at a turbulent time for the court and its members. Concerns surrounding the lifetime appointees involve Justice Clarence Thomas, who, according to an investigation by ProPublica, failed to disclose 20 years of luxury trips with billionaire and Republican donor Harlan Crow."