ABBY LIPOLD , Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Pulitzer winner returns to the University of Pittsburgh for forum on Supreme Court ethics
"Mr. Murphy said about half of the readers of his series thought “there was an obvious breach in propriety,” but the other half thought the issue wasn’t worth reporting on."
Suzanne Monyak, Lydia Wheeler , Bloomberg Law; Elena Kagan Endorses High Court Ethics Enforcement Mechanism
"Justice Elena Kagan proposed Chief Justice John Roberts appoint a panel of judges to enforce the US Supreme Court’s code of conduct.
While speaking Thursday at a judicial conference in Sacramento, California, Kagan said she trusts Roberts and if he creates “some sort of committee of highly respected judges with a great deal of experience and a reputation for fairness,” that seems like a good solution...
Kagan, in response to a moderator’s question at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s annual judicial conference, acknowledged there are difficulties in deciding who should enforce an ethics code for the justices.
“But I feel as though we, however hard it is, that we could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this,” she said."
, Chicago Sun Times; If Supreme Court won't act to reform its ethics, Congress should step in
"When the U.S. Supreme Court justices in November announced new ethics rules that had no teeth, they said it would “dispel” the “misunderstanding” the justices “regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”
Well, that didn’t work. It’s time for Congress to step in as new revelations about questionable ethics keep popping up...
At a time when the nation is polarized, we need a court that is an honest arbiter of disputes. Without an enforceable ethics code, we can’t hope to get one."
Mina Kim , KQED; Supreme Court Set to Decide Landmark Cases Amid Ethics Controversies
"With its term drawing to a close, the U.S. Supreme Court is getting ready to rule on major issues like abortion access, gun regulations, and whether former president Trump has immunity from civil litigation. Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito is still facing questions – and calls for recusal– over political flags flown at his houses. We’ll discuss the ethics controversies swirling around the court and look at what the upcoming rulings could mean for the presidential election… the country… and you.
Guests:
Vikram Amar, professor of law, UC Davis School of Law - He clerked for Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the United States Supreme Court.
Mary Ziegler, professor of law, UC Davis School of Law - Her most recent book is "Roe: The History of a National Obsession.""
Gabe Roth, Bloomberg; Supreme Court Ethics Lapses Aren’t a Partisan Issue
"Ethics reform at the Supreme Court is not a partisan issue. Nor is it a cynical attempt to shame or bully the court. It’s true that the justices most in the news for ethical lapses — Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — are staunch conservatives. But liberal justices have had their issues, too."
Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski, Pro Publica; Justice Clarence Thomas Acknowledges He Should Have Disclosed Free Trips From Billionaire Donor
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged for the first time in a new financial disclosure filing that he should have publicly reported two free vacations he received from billionaire Harlan Crow...
Legal ethics experts said that Thomas appeared to have violated the law by failing to disclose the trips and gifts."
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."
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."
Steven Lubet, Williams Memorial Professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, NBC News ; Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts gives an incomplete history lesson on judicial ethics
"His comments come amid increased calls for the Supreme Court to be subject to a code of ethics, like all other U.S. courts. As chief justice, though, Roberts has consistently defended the court’s refusal to adopt one, rejecting all suggestions of congressional or other oversight. His referring to Taft’s support for judicial independence seems to bolster that argument. But the story Roberts presented is oddly incomplete, omitting a crucial aspect of Taft’s legacy: Taft also believed that judges should be accountable for their conduct according to ethical standards developed outside the judiciary – a proposition that Roberts has politely but firmly rejected...
Another financial scandal, resulting in the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in 1969, spurred the ABA to re-examine the by-then-antiquated canons. The ABA promulgated the much-strengthened Code of Judicial Conduct in 1972. The Judicial Conference of the United States, with authority over the lower federal courts, officially adopted the code in 1973, as did every state judiciary in the following years. Though the code itself doesn’t include penalties, violations can lead to discipline in some circumstances.
That progress stopped at the Supreme Court steps. The Supreme Court has declined for over 50 years to adopt the Judicial Conference code, or any other, making it the only court in the U.S.without a formal set of ethics rules."
"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.
"A court has decided that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore will face trial in September for violating judicial ethics after he ordered state judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses early this year. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, which has the final say on complaints against state judges, rejected Moore’s motion to dismiss the charges on Monday, paving the way for a trial, AL.com reported. Moore is widely expected to be found guilty and removed from the Alabama Supreme Court as a result. The Court of the Judiciary did, however, reject a motion by the state’s Judicial Inquiry Commission to remove him from the bench right away."
"The court used to be a more decorous institution. A new computer analysis of about 25,000 Supreme Court opinions from 1791 to 2008 identified three trends that have transformed the court’s tone. The justices’ opinions, the study found, have become longer, easier to understand — and grumpier. The judicial-ethics decision was a good example of all three trends. It was simultaneously sprawling, accessible and testy... The new study, to be published next year in the Washington University Law Review, is the work of Daniel Rockmore and Keith Carlson, computer scientists at Dartmouth College, and Michael A. Livermore, a law professor at the University of Virginia. It is part of a cottage industry of quantitative analysis of Supreme Court opinions using linguistic software. The era of big data has yielded some uncontroversial findings about the Supreme Court."
