The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, granted death row inmate Richard Glossip a new trial, reversing the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor, cited the prosecution’s failure to disclose key evidence of the key witness’s mental illness and drug use. Justice Thomas, dissenting, sharply criticized the majority for “stretching the law at every turn” to prevent Glossip’s execution, arguing the Court disregarded established legal principles and the victim’s family’s wishes. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s ruling.
Read More
The Judicial Conference refused to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation despite his failure to disclose lavish gifts and travel, citing jurisdictional concerns and claiming his amended disclosures addressed the issues. This decision effectively guts the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which explicitly grants the Conference this referral power, leaving Thomas without accountability for his actions. The Conference’s assertion that Thomas is now compliant is contradicted by evidence showing continued omissions in his disclosures. This lack of accountability highlights the judiciary’s inability to police itself and foreshadows a likely lack of investigation by the incoming Trump administration, solidifying a system where powerful figures face no repercussions for ethical violations.
Read More
The Judicial Conference rejected requests to refer Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Justice Department for ethics investigations. This decision, outlined in letters to Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson, cited both justices’ amended financial disclosures and legal uncertainty regarding the Conference’s authority over Supreme Court justices. The Conference Secretary argued that Congressional authorization would be necessary for such referrals. Despite these actions, critics contend the Judicial Conference failed to adequately address whether Justice Thomas willfully violated disclosure laws.
Read More
The U.S. Judicial Conference declined to refer ethics complaints against Justices Thomas and Jackson to the Justice Department, citing the lack of clarity on whether such referrals are permissible and noting ongoing external investigations. Justice Thomas will adhere to updated disclosure guidelines for gifts and hospitality, addressing concerns about unreported luxury trips. Justice Jackson has already amended her disclosures. The Conference’s inaction underscores the need for Congress to establish a more robust mechanism for investigating judicial ethics violations.
Read More
The US Supreme Court’s refusal to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation regarding undeclared gifts and travel highlights a concerning trend: the apparent exemption of high-ranking officials from accountability. The judiciary’s decision, based on Thomas’s amended financial disclosures and the ongoing review of financial disclosure guidelines, leaves many feeling disillusioned. The argument that the updates to disclosure requirements and Thomas’s subsequent compliance render the initial complaint moot raises questions about the effectiveness of self-regulation within the judicial branch.
This decision, communicated through a letter from the secretary to the U.S. Judicial Conference, directly rejects a request from Democratic lawmakers who had argued that Thomas’s actions constituted a willful violation of the Ethics in Government Act.… Continue reading
A Senate Democratic investigation uncovered additional unreported luxury trips taken by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 2021, including private jet and yacht travel sponsored by billionaire Harlan Crow. The 93-page report details over two dozen instances of Thomas accepting luxury travel and gifts from wealthy benefactors, totaling over $4.75 million since his confirmation, much of which went unreported until the adoption of a new ethics code. The report urges Congress to create an enforceable code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, highlighting the lack of accountability within the court and the need for greater transparency. While the investigation didn’t find evidence of undue influence, it reveals a pattern of undisclosed luxury travel among several justices, prompting calls for reform.
Read More
A Senate Judiciary Committee report details previously undisclosed luxury travel accepted by Justice Clarence Thomas, funded by Harlan Crow, exceeding $4.75 million in value since 1991. The report also cites Justice Samuel Alito’s misuse of a hospitality exemption for a 2008 trip. The investigation, prompted by concerns over ethics violations, recommends Congress create an enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court’s new code of conduct, which lacks such provisions. Republicans opposed the investigation and did not participate in the report.
Read More
This article is protected by copyright and all rights are reserved. Its use is subject to Fortune Media IP Limited’s terms of use and privacy policies. The FORTUNE trademark is registered in the U.S. and other countries. Links to products and services may generate compensation for FORTUNE, and offers are subject to change.
Read More
A Senate Judiciary Committee report details Justice Clarence Thomas’s undisclosed luxury travel, totaling over $4.75 million in gifts and travel since 1991, including unreported 2021 trips sponsored by Harlan Crow. The report, which also highlights ethical concerns involving other justices, urges Congress to create an enforceable code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, a measure unlikely to pass with Republicans soon taking Senate control. The investigation revealed a pattern of undisclosed gifts and travel extending back to Justice Antonin Scalia, while current justices have faced scrutiny for various conflicts of interest.
Read More
Justice Thomas Did Not Disclose Additional Trips, Democrats Say
Justice Thomas’s failure to disclose additional trips has sparked outrage among Democrats. The lack of transparency surrounding these undisclosed trips raises serious questions about his adherence to ethical standards expected of a Supreme Court Justice. This situation highlights a broader concern regarding accountability for high-ranking officials.
The sheer volume of undisclosed travel raises questions about the extent of his unreported activities. It suggests a pattern of behavior that goes beyond simple oversight and raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. This lack of transparency erodes public trust in the integrity of the Supreme Court.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood