Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images
Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images
A series of annual Supreme Court decisions this week will get a lot of attention, but polls show that Americans of all political backgrounds are increasingly troubled by the lack of a code of ethics for the supreme court.
Chief Justice John Roberts has more than once said that the court is developing a code of ethics for itself, but so far, cricket.
Meanwhile, investigative reporters found that the conduct of the Supreme Court was fertile ground for plowing. Last week, ProPublica report that Judge Samuel Alito failed to disclose that he enjoyed an all-inclusive, luxury fishing trip to Alaska, complete with a private jet trip, with hedge fund support titan Paul Singer, a major Republican donor who has participated in 10 appeals to the Supreme Court.
Instead of answering ProPublica’s written questions, Alito did something unfair before he did. He defended his behavior in a commentary published on the editorial page of the conservative-friendly newspaper. The Wall Street Journal. When explaining why he didn’t pull himself out of a case where Singer ended up with $2.4 billion, Alito said he only met Singer by chance at events with a lot of money. large groups attended. But as Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh told ProPublica, “If you’re not good friends, what are you doing to accept” this private jet trip? And “if you’re good friends, what are you doing to judge his case?”
Next reveal things about Thomas
And then, of course, there are moral stories involved with Justice Clarence Thomas. What we do know now is that for perhaps two decades, Thomas and his wife, Ginni Thomas, made lavish tours around the world sponsored by their Republican super-tycoon friend Harlan. His and that Crow paid for Thomas’s grandson’s private school tuition and purchased property owned by Thomas and his family. Thomas has never disclosed any of this, as he is required to comply with the disclosure provisions of the Federal Government Ethics Act, which apply to all federal judges, including including Supreme Court justices.
When ProPublica disclosing these facts, Thomas released a statement claiming that when he first went to court in 1991, he was advised by colleagues and others that he did not need to disclose hospitality from personal friends. Thomas then went on to say that his understanding is now essentially corrected and that in the future he will disclose personal travel and entertainment at the expense of others.
However, he did not commit to amending his previous disclosure forms. And arguably there is at least some wiggle room in the question of hospitality. The 2023 Judiciary Conference “clarified” the disclosure rule to make it clear that hospitality from a friend, unless it is at the friend’s residence or family property, must be disclosed. Thomas is expected to follow that rule on his record for 2022 – a record for which he has been extended by 90 days, so has Alito. However, many court observers argue that he will not amend his previous records.
However, there are a number of confirmed but undisclosed transactions and interests in the past that Thomas was forced to disclose, according to ethics experts. So he will likely make some modifications to his previous record.
“The real estate deal fell through in 2014 when he sold his mother’s house and several adjoining properties to Harlan Crow. [The failure to disclose that] It’s a very clear violation of the law,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for greater court transparency. Government ethics stipulates that “if you had any real estate transactions, you had to disclose it, and he didn’t.”
Likewise, Roth said that private school tuition payments to Thomas’ grandson were gifts that should have been disclosed.
Apparently, Crow’s private jet, his yacht, and his resorts are not owned by him personally but by his businesses. So, under the “clarification” rule about hospitality from friends, Thomas cannot evade disclosure, even though his public statements do not cause him to modify the details forms. his previous disclosure.
Thomas’ omission dates back more than 25 years
In the past, Thomas made such modifications when other shortcomings came to light. In 2011, he revised the 12 years of his disclosure forms to reflect his wife’s income from 1997 to 2009. During those years, Thomas checked the box labeled “NO” YES” for his wife’s employment despite the fact that she has been employed by the Republican leadership in the House, Hillsdale College and the conservative Heritage Foundation, earning a combined total of more than 1.6 million dollars during that time, according to Common Cause and the Justice League.
Other judges have faced ethical questions regarding their spouses’ work. The ethics code requires judges to disclose their spouse’s employment but not their wages. Jane Roberts, the judge’s wife, owns interests in a legal recruitment business that recruits lawyers to large firms. Overall, she does her job very well and earns a lot of money from it, estimated to be in the millions of dollars.
But most legal ethics experts jumped to her defense when critics questioned the possibility of a conflict of interest.
“She did nothing wrong,” said University of Virginia professor Amanda Frost, who specializes in legal ethics. In fact, friends of the judge and his wife noted that she left her job as a lawyer at a first-class firm when her husband was appointed chief justice, precisely because she wanted to avoid any any appearance of moral conflict.
Fix the Court’s Roth called criticism of Jane Roberts “almost a trifle”, but he made a distinction between Jane Roberts and Ginni Thomas, who advised on a number of matters that were brought to the Supreme Court. High. Most recently, Ginni Thomas was involved in legal efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, but Judge Thomas did not withdraw himself when these matters reached the Supreme Court.
The problem for the judges is that all of these stories – and more – are a trickle, drip, drip, eroding public trust in the courts. And if you compare the Supreme Court today with the courts of 40, 50 or 75 years ago, this is a very different world. The judges back then were largely not public figures. They don’t write books or give much speeches, and especially not to groups with clear ideological views.
And perhaps most importantly, there is not a large group of the extremely wealthy – often associated with political parties and causes – trying to reach members of the court.
New billionaire class of “friends”
Once upon a time, judges had political friends; they even play poker at the White House. Washington is, or was, a very friendly town. But the judges ruled against their political friends, and if they got too close, as Justice Abe Fortas did with President Lyndon B. Johnson, he would eventually have to resign.
Today, there are many billionaires who want to build bridges with some members of the court. As far as is known, at least for now, they are conservative men and women interested in conservative causes. They want bragging rights about knowing the judges, and even if they don’t discuss Supreme Court cases, they want closeness and possibly indirect influence.
By most Americans’ standards, Supreme Court justices do very well financially. Indeed, if they really cared about money, they might not have become federal judges. They can make 10 times more than their salary, as of January $274,000 for associate judges and $286,000 for chief justices.
The richest and the poorest of the judges
We know quite a bit about the condition of their assets because they have to file financial disclosure forms for their investments, real estate transactions, books, and teaching income. Seven of the nine judges filed the disclosure form on time in June.
In terms of their relative wealth, Roberts comes out on top. After all, after nearly a decade of community service, he spent 12 years working at an elite law firm, his annual income in today’s dollars is $1.7 million, and now his wife he is making a lot of money.
According to what is considered best practice for the judge, Roberts has most of his investments in index funds and mutual funds, where he does not control the investments and he will no conflict of interest. That said, the way these investments are publicly reported is by a code indicating the range — for example, M is $150,000 to $200,000 and P1 is $1 million to $5 million. So when you add up all of Roberts’ investments, the total amount is a ridiculous amount of nonsense: about $10 million to $30 million. No other judge comes close to that, and there’s no way to tell if Roberts’ actual total is at the low or high end of that range.
As for the other judges, at the bottom in terms of wealth are Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan.
Kavanaugh lists investments between $15,000 and $65,000. He’s spent most of his adult life in public service, and even with his teaching income, capped at $30,000, he’s probably the toughest by far. hour. He lives in a modest and relatively small house, and his wife has a part-time job. In fact, during the pandemic, with the exception of the chief justice, Kavanaugh is the only judge working in their Supreme Court office, because, with two teenagers at home, it’s hard to concentrate.
Kagan owns an apartment in Washington, but she rents out the parking space that comes with the apartment for $15,000 to $50,000, possibly closer to $15,000. And she has investments, many of them in individual retirement accounts and what appear to be other retirement accounts, with total investments ranging from $1.6 million. to $3.5 million.
Publishers pay millions for books
In addition to the teaching and spousal income some judges have, five of the nine judges are earning or have earned substantial sums from book advances and royalties.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor made $3.5 million from her bestselling autobiography and children’s books. Thomas reports earnings more than 1 million dollars for his autobiography, which was also a bestseller. Justice Amy Coney Barrett is said to have signed a book contract with a conservative publisher for $2 million. There are no words about what it is about. Justice Neil Gorsuch has made about $1 million from two books, a bestseller being a collection of his essays, speeches, and personal reflections. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is said to have signed on to write her autobiography for at least a million dollars.
