A series of revelations concerning Supreme Court justices neglecting to fully disclose gifts and real estate transactions sparked a rare moment of agreement.
Conservative and liberal judges issued a joint statement saying they are satisfied with the current system in which they voluntarily obey ethics norms. There are no changes required. They say that the Supreme Court is unique because of its independence and security.
Far from assuaging those concerned about the court’s ethics, the comment made it appear as if the justices believe the rules are optional for them.
Several violations
The following are some examples of questionable ethical developments:
First, the independent investigative journalism organisation ProPublica discovered that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas omitted to disclose luxury trips paid for by his millionaire companion, Republican contributor Harlan Crow.
Then, according to ProPublica, Crow purchased real estate from Thomas, which Thomas also failed to disclose in 2014.
AWN later stated that the court rejected to hear an appeal in a case brought against a corporation associated with Crow, however it was unclear at the time if Crow was involved in the case. Notably, Thomas did not recuse himself from the case.
None of this implies that Thomas had any influence on Crow’s side. However, it raises concerns about ethics and conflicts of interest at a time when public trust in the Supreme Court is waning.
Thomas cited bad advice for failing to disclose the vacation gifts and plans to modify disclosures to reflect the real estate transaction retrospectively. More from Ariane de Vogue at AWN.
But, according to Politico, Justice Neil Gorsuch failed to disclose that he sold nearly $2 million in real estate to the head of a law firm that regularly argues cases in front of the court, which hasn’t helped matters. Gorsuch reported that he earned between $250,000 and $500,000 on the transaction, but the line where a buyer may be listed was left blank. Read the complete report from AWN.
Are you above the law?
Several good-government organisations have called for new ethics rules for justices. I spoke with Walter Shaub, former director of the US Office of Government Ethics and current member of the Project on Government Oversight.
Thomas, according to POGO and Shaub, certainly violated ethical legislation by receiving trips on planes and boats. Please read their complaint. As I discovered, there is very little oversight of the court.
The following are excerpts from our phone chat.
There is no way to hold them accountable.
WOLF: You know more about government ethics than almost anyone else. What do you think when you read these discoveries regarding what justices Gorsuch and Thomas kept out of their disclosures?
SHAUB: I believe there are two issues here. And they both stem from a culture of exceptionalism, in which Supreme Court justices believe they are above the law, above scrutiny, and above everything else in the government.
The issue is that their behaviour is worse than that of other government officials.
So this idea that they don’t need an ethics code – I believe Dahlia Lithwick, a Supreme Court scholar… She summed it up perfectly when she stated, “This is the attitude of a monarch.”
The notion that you are the law, that anything you do is legal, and that there is no accountability – I understand that they can get away with it because they are not elected. The Supreme Court has construed the Constitution to provide its own members lifetime appointments, with impeachment as the only recourse.
They understand that they will not be impeached until one party controls 60% of the Senate. So, in my opinion, this is a case of absolute power corrupting absolute power.
They simply understand that there are no feasible means of holding them accountable. As a result, they will continue to ignore the American people and act more like monarchs than public servants.
Their dedication to ethics is largely voluntary.
WOLF: The Supreme Court submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee signed by all nine justices. Chief Justice John Roberts says in it that he will not speak before the committee. They also claim to have freely submitted to ethics rules.
The following are some major quotes from that statement:
“Congress established the Judicial Conference of the United States in 1922 as a tool to manage the lower federal courts.” The Supreme Court is not overseen by the Judicial Conference, which binds lesser courts. … Members of the Court freely adopted a resolution in 1991 to adhere to the essence of the Judicial Conference Regulations. Since then, Justices have complied with the financial disclosure requirements and prohibitions on gifts, unearned money, unpaid work, and honoraria. They are required to submit the same annual financial disclosure forms as other federal judges.”
Essentially, if you read between the lines, they imply that no law applies to them.
SHAUB: The Ethics in Government Act, which imposes financial disclosure standards, does apply to them, and it is unambiguous about include Supreme Court justices.
So this is a deception, implying that complying with what the Judicial Conference says is optional. Following the laws of our country that were adopted by Congress is not voluntary.
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 required gift disclosure. It is explicitly stated that the personal hospitality exemption does not apply to corporate gifts and that it solely applies to food, lodging, and entertainment.
A private plane journey or a sea voyage cannot be described as any of these things.
