Congressman Jamie Raskin’s request for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from the Donald Trump case, following a reported phone call between the two, has ignited a firestorm of debate. The call itself raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest, particularly given the high stakes of the Trump case and Justice Alito’s known conservative leanings. Raskin’s call for recusal is a direct response to this perceived conflict, aiming to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
The lack of immediate action on Raskin’s request highlights a deeper concern about accountability within the Supreme Court. The perceived absence of consequences for Justice Alito’s actions underscores the limitations of existing mechanisms to address ethical breaches by Supreme Court justices.… Continue reading
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke with President-elect Trump the day before Trump’s lawyers petitioned the court to halt his upcoming hush-money sentencing. Alito claims the call, at the request of a former law clerk, solely concerned a job recommendation and did not involve the pending petition. However, the timing raises ethical concerns regarding potential protocol violations given the court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal. Trump’s legal team argues the sentencing would interfere with the presidential transition, citing potential presidential immunity. The Supreme Court will now consider Trump’s petition.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke with President-elect Trump regarding a former law clerk’s job application, a conversation that occurred before Trump filed an emergency appeal to delay his sentencing. Alito stated the call did not involve Trump’s pending case or any other matter before the Supreme Court. While recommending former clerks for positions is common, this instance is notable given the timing and the potential for criticism regarding the Court’s independence. The call has already drawn renewed scrutiny of Alito’s conduct.
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
Chief Justice Roberts’ condemnation of elected officials for intimidating judges rings incredibly hollow when considering the ethical quagmire surrounding the Supreme Court itself. His pronouncements on judicial independence seem less like principled pronouncements and more like convenient distractions from the serious ethical breaches within the court.
The sheer volume of unreported gifts accepted by justices, raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest, undermines any claim of impartiality. These aren’t mere minor infractions; they represent a systemic failure in accountability, a blatant disregard for the very principles of justice Roberts claims to uphold. This lack of transparency directly erodes public trust in the court’s decisions.… 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
A Senate investigation reveals widespread ethical violations and conflicts of interest among Supreme Court justices, both current and deceased. The report details numerous undisclosed luxury trips accepted by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, often from individuals with cases before the Court, with Justice Thomas’s gifts unparalleled in modern history. This behavior, facilitated by figures like Leonard Leo, highlights a right-wing ecosystem of influence peddling surrounding the Court. The report underscores the Court’s failure to self-regulate and calls for Congressional action to restore public trust, though such action is currently unlikely given the current political climate. The report cites specific instances of undisclosed travel, gifts, and political activity by justices and their spouses that created clear conflicts of interest.
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
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker