An Investigation of the Ethics Challenge at the Supreme Court

[robosmith]

An Investigation of the Ethics Challenge at the Supreme Court

Quote

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Investigation
On April 6, 2023, ProPublica published the first of several major exposés revealing
extensive allegations of apparent ethical misconduct by sitting and former justices of the
Supreme Court of the United States.1 Following the publication of this article, Senator Richard J.
Durbin, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, again renewed his call for the Supreme Court
to adopt an enforceable code of conduct2—a step he first advocated over 12 years ago on
February 13, 2012, with then-Chairman Patrick Leahy and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Al
Franken, and Richard Blumenthal.3 Chair Durbin also directed his staff to begin this
investigation.
This investigation has involved Committee oversight requests, open-source research, and
other investigative methods. The Committee made oversight requests to the following
individuals, holding companies, and organizations:
 Harlan Crow: May 8, 2023
 Holding companies controlled by Mr. Crow that own his private jet, his superyacht (the
Michaela Rose), and Topridge Camp (a 105-acre property located on Upper St. Regis
Lake, New York)
o HRZNAR LLC: May 8, 2023
o Rochelle Marine LTD: May 8, 2023
o Topridge Holdings, LLC: May 8: 2023
 Leonard Leo: July 11, 2023
 Paul Singer: July 11, 2023
 Robin Arkley, II: July 11, 2023
 The Supreme Court Historical Society: July 11, 2023
 David Sokol: September 13, 2023
 Paul Anthony Novelly: September 13, 2023
 

The Supreme Court Historical Society complied with the Committee’s requests4 and
subsequently updated its productions.5 Mr. Novelly substantially complied with the Committee’s
requests.6 Mr. Singer and Mr. Sokol made baseless arguments objecting to the Committee’s
legitimate oversight authority, but nevertheless partially complied with the Committee’s
requests.7 Mr. Leo and Mr. Arkley rejected the Committee’s requests in their entirety, relying on
baseless arguments objecting to the Committee’s legitimate oversight authority.8 Mr. Crow, on
behalf of himself and his holding companies, also rejected the Committee’s requests and publicly
made similar objections, but privately proposed a limited production to the Committee, which
the Committee found insufficient.9
Due to the noncompliance of Mr. Leo, Mr. Arkley, Mr. Crow, and Mr. Crow’s holding
companies, Chair Durbin requested that the Committee provide him subpoena authority to
compel their responses.10 The day before the Committee’s consideration of this subpoena
 

Shareauthorization, Mr. Arkley complied with the Committee’s request and made a production Chair

Durbin deemed sufficient.11 On November 30, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized Chair
Durbin to issue subpoenas to Mr. Leo, Mr. Crow, and Mr. Crow’s holding companies.12 On
January 4, 2024, Chair Durbin provided Mr. Leo, Mr. Crow, and Mr. Crow’s holding companies
a final opportunity to comply with the Committee’s requests before utilizing compulsory
process.13 Following negotiations with representatives for Mr. Crow, Mr. Crow and his holding
companies obliged and, following negotiation, made a production to the Committee on June 6,
2024, which Chair Durbin deemed sufficient.14 Mr. Leo continued to reject the Committee’s
requests, prompting Chair Durbin to subpoena Mr. Leo for the requested documents and records
on April 11, 2024.15 Mr. Leo failed to comply with the subpoena.
This report summarizes the findings of the Senate Judiciary Committee Majority Staff to
date, including the information produced by the individuals, holding companies, and
organizations detailed above. It also provides historical context for alleged misconduct by
Supreme Court justices over the last several decades and explains the lack of adequate guardrails
to prevent and police this misconduct.
This report does not include any direct testimony from Chief Justice John Roberts, whose
Court has been embroiled in an ethical crisis of its own making for well over a decade. The
impetus for the February 13, 2012 letter referenced above was the 2011 Year-End Report on the
Federal Judiciary, which declared that “the Court has had no reason to adopt the [Judicial
Conference’s] Code of Conduct through a formal resolution,”16 despite “[t]he ethical conduct of
the Supreme Court [being] under growing scrutiny” in 2011 due to “[q]uestions[] raised over
Justice Clarence Thomas’s appearances before Republican-backed groups and his acceptance of
favors from a contributor in Texas, Harlan Crow.”17
Twelve years have passed, and the same problem persists with some of the same
offenders. But the public is now far more aware of the extent of the largesse certain justices have
received and how these justices and their billionaire benefactors continue to act with impunity.
On April 10, 2023, every Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat joined Chair Durbin to request
that Chief Justice Roberts begin an investigation into this ethical misconduct on behalf of the

Court.18 On April 20, Chair Durbin asked Chief Justice Roberts to appear before the Committee

to examine ways the Court could address this persistent problem.19 Chief Justice Roberts refused
to appear before the Committee, and, rather than investigate the misconduct consuming the
Court, produced a nonbinding “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” that the justices
purported to follow.20 Over a year and several additional exposés later, Chief Justice Roberts
continues to refuse to act or to appear before Congress to take any responsibility for the
impropriety he has let persist in the highest court in the land.
B. Key Findings
Chief Justice Roberts’s continued unwillingness to implement the only viable solution to
the Court’s ethical crisis—an enforceable code of conduct—requires Congress to act to restore
the public’s confidence in the highest court in the land. This report and its findings make clear
that passage of the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which was reported
by the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 5, 2023, is a necessary step.
FINDING 1: The Supreme Court has mired itself in an ethical crisis of its own
making by failing to address justices’ ethical misconduct for decades. Despite post-
Watergate Congressional efforts to renew faith in all three branches of the federal government
through ethics legislation, the Supreme Court has allowed a culture of misconduct to metastasize
into a full-blown crisis that has driven public opinion of the Court to historic lows. Justices
appointed by presidents of both parties have engaged in conduct that ranges from questionable to
clearly violative of federal ethics laws, and several justices have done so consistently without
suffering negative consequences.
FINDING 2: Justice Scalia accepted lavish gifts from billionaires and others with
business before the Court for more than a decade. The late Justice Scalia regularly accepted
luxury travel and lodging from wealthy benefactors and failed to report these gifts in his
financial disclosures, in violation of federal law. He traveled on hundreds of subsidized trips,
including several dozen hunting and fishing trips with prominent Republican donors and
politicians, that he obfuscated by only disclosing the portions of the trips that related to his
judicial duties.
FINDING 3: Justice Scalia misused the “personal hospitality” exemption to the
Ethics in Government Act to hide or obscure lavish gifts. The Ethics in Government Act
requires federal officials, including Supreme Court justices, to file financial disclosure reports.
The law includes certain exemptions for what must be included in these reports, including a
limited exemption for personal hospitality that applies only to food, lodging, or entertainment
received from an individual. Justice Scalia regularly misused the personal hospitality exemption
18 Letter from the Honorable Richard J. Durbin, Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, et al. to the Honorable
John Roberts, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court (Apr. 10, 2023), Appendix A, Key Document D.
19 Letter from the Honorable Richard J. Durbin, Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to the Honorable John
Roberts, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court (Apr. 20, 2023), Appendix A, Key Document E.
20 Letter from the Honorable John Roberts, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, to the Honorable Richard J. Durbin,
Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Apr. 25, 2023), Appendix A, Key Document H.

to improperly characterize travel-related gifts as reimbursements and failed to disclose
transportation and trips in part or in whole.
FINDING 4: Justice Thomas has accepted lavish gifts from billionaires with
business before the Court for almost his entire tenure as a justice. Since his confirmation to
the Supreme Court in 1991, Justice Thomas has accepted millions of dollars in gifts from
wealthy benefactors, several of whom had business before the Court, and nearly all of whom first
met Thomas after he joined the Court. The number, value, and extravagance of the gifts accepted
by Justice Thomas have no comparison in modern American history.
FINDING 5: Justice Thomas chose to ignore legal obligations to disclose lavish gifts
after media scrutiny over his disclosures in 2004. During his early years on the Court, Justice
Thomas disclosed some of the lavish gifts from billionaires and their corporate entities as
required by law. However, following public reporting in 2004 about this extreme largesse,
Justice Thomas stopped disclosing the vast majority of gifts he received. This change in Justice
Thomas’s behavior was not accompanied by any significant change in federal ethics law, and his
failure to disclose gifts he received constitutes a violation of federal law.
FINDING 6: Justice Alito misused the “personal hospitality” exemption when he
did not disclose gifts of transportation and lodging he received for a luxury fishing trip to
Alaska in 2008. Justice Alito failed to properly report gifts of transportation and lodging he
received for a 2008 luxury Alaskan fishing trip. Following investigative reporting on the trip, he
wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal in which he defended his failure to disclose
the gifts he received. Arguing that he was not required to report gifts of lodging or private jet
transportation under the personal hospitality exemption, Justice Alito relied on flawed reasoning
that illustrated his apparent misinterpretation of federal law and relevant rules and regulations
relating to his ethics obligations. Justice Alito’s failure to report gifts he accepted constitutes a
violation of federal law.
FINDING 7: Individuals seeking to influence the Court have used gifts to gain
private access to the justices. Gifts—particularly gifts of transportation and lodging—can be
used to gain private access to Supreme Court justices. This private access can create the
appearance of impropriety that justices must avoid in order to fulfill their judicial obligations.
Individuals with business before the Court have given numerous gifts to organizations, political
activists, and justices and their families as part of apparent efforts to gain private access to the
justices. These apparent influence operations create the appearance of impropriety, even when
they do not change justices’ conduct.
FINDING 8: Leonard Leo has made a career of advancing corporate and
conservative movement interests by facilitating lavish gifts and private access to the
justices. For decades, Leonard Leo has connected conservative attorneys and activists with
Republican-appointed justices and their families in an apparent effort to advance conservative
causes. In addition to playing an outsized role in the selection and confirmation of every
Republican-appointed justice over the past 20 years, Mr. Leo has directed money to
organizations led by Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas. Mr. Leo also facilitated or
participated in several undisclosed trips taken by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

FINDING 9: The justices regularly fail to identify obvious conflicts of interest that
require their recusal under federal law. Justices have repeatedly failed to identify conflicts of
interest that they face in cases before the Court. These conflicts often involve the financial
interests of justices, including real estate deals, publishing contracts, and stock ownership. Other
conflicts are rooted in personal relationships between justices and their families and parties with
interests before the Court. Contrary to their legal obligations, justices have repeatedly failed to
recuse themselves from cases involving conflicts of interest due both to inadequate conflict-
screening processes and willful refusal. These failures demonstrate the need for less subjectivity
and more transparency in recusal determinations.
FINDING 10: Justices treat their “duty to sit” as a license for the appearance of
impropriety, rather than a constraint on their conduct. Unlike district and circuit court
judges, Supreme Court justices cannot be replaced by another sitting judge when they recuse,
creating a prudential “duty to sit” unique to the justices. However, this “duty to sit” imposes an
obligation on the justices to refrain from engaging in conduct that creates an appearance of
impropriety—otherwise it can be used as a license to act with impunity. Despite this, several
justices have engaged in conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety and refuse to recuse
in cases involving the resulting conflicts of interest, citing their duty to sit as the justification.
FINDING 11: Justice Alito has created the appearance of impropriety in several
instances that necessitate his recusal in specific cases under federal law. On several
occasions, Justice Alito or his wife have engaged in conduct that created an appearance of
impropriety. This included the display of flags associated with the January 6 insurrection outside
their homes and his interview with an attorney who had a case pending before the Court. Despite
the appearance of impropriety, Justice Alito refused to recuse himself from cases concerning the
2020 election and January 6 and the case involving the attorney who interviewed him.
FINDING 12: Justice Thomas has violated federal law on multiple occasions by
refusing to recuse himself in cases where his wife’s interests could be substantially affected
by the outcome of the proceeding. Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, is active politically
and regularly works on issues being litigated before the Court and with the attorneys and parties
who bring those issues before the Court. She was also involved in efforts to subvert the 2020
presidential election as part of the “Stop the Steal” movement, including direct engagement with
Trump Administration and state legislative officials. Federal law prohibits a justice from hearing
a case in which the justice’s spouse has any interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding. Despite the interests of Ms. Thomas in every case concerning the
2020 election and the January 6 insurrection, Justice Thomas has inappropriately participated in
all but one such case before the Court.
FINDING 13: The Judicial Conference has failed to enforce financial disclosure
regulations and properly review financial disclosure reports of the justices. The Judicial
Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts administer a
range of ethics policies for the judiciary. For decades, the Judicial Conference has failed to
adequately perform financial disclosure reviews, conduct investigations, and respond
appropriately to ethical misconduct complaints against the justices. Although the Judicial

Conference has the ability to hold justices accountable for their ethics violations, it has not taken
any meaningful steps to do so.
FINDING 14: Having refused to address these myriad ethical issues, the Court has
demonstrated its inability or unwillingness to police its own ethical conduct. The Supreme
Court has refused to investigate or cooperate in investigations into reported ethical misconduct
by sitting justices. Any claim that the Court can adequately police itself is belied by the fact that
the Court has not taken meaningful action to address ethical misconduct and no justice has faced
consequences for unethical behavior—despite dozens of credible allegations of misconduct by
multiple justices over decades. An enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court is
essential in light of the Court’s failure to police itself.
***
The Committee’s investigation demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s current approach
to ethics is fundamentally flawed. These shortcomings stem from several issues: (1) the
willingness of some justices to violate federal law governing ethical conduct; (2) decades of
organizational failure by the Court and individual chambers to adequately prepare the justices’
financial disclosures or perform routine recusal reviews on pending matters; (3) decades of
organizational failure by the Judicial Conference to adequately perform financial disclosure
reviews; and (4) the abject failure of the Judicial Conference to treat ethical misconduct
complaints against the justices seriously and conduct any—let alone thorough—investigations.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and as the head of the federal
judiciary both figuratively and literally maintains the rule of law. Our system of government
requires a Court that maintains the trust of the public. Yet, the Roberts Court has lost the
confidence of the public. The public’s view of the Supreme Court hit a historic low in 2023 as
reports of ethical misconduct by the justices were regularly published, and the Court repeatedly
refused to acknowledge the problem or take meaningful steps to address it.21 As of August 2024,
a majority of the public continues to have an unfavorable view of the Court.22 Yet, several
justices reportedly continue to believe that voluntary compliance with a code of conduct with no
enforcement mechanism is sufficient to address this crisis.23 Their belief stands in stark contrast
to all 50 states and the District of Columbia adopting “some mechanism for enforcing judicial
codes of conduct and ethics rules” against the state supreme court justices or their equivalent.24
While the justices interpret the law, they are not above it. The Roberts Court has
seemingly forgotten this, and the only way forward is the implementation of an enforceable code
of conduct. Every day that the justices exercise the judicial power entrusted to them, they must
conduct themselves in a manner that demonstrates they are worthy of the public’s trust. They

have failed to do so, and the state of the judiciary is worse for it.

 

 

Corruption abounds esp among the longest serving right wing justices.

[User]

So... this is a summary of all the previously argued BS. 

Give me a break. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

An Investigation of the Ethics Challenge at the Supreme Court

Corruption abounds esp among the longest serving right wing justices.

According to a left wing investigation  

And no laws broken? Hmm. 

 

[User]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

According to a left wing investigation  

And no laws broken? Hmm. 

 

It is nothing new... just the same crap. He flew a flag associated with the insurrection? 

These are not serious people. Just pathetic political theater of the worst kind. 

[Aristides]

One would think a supreme court would have a code of conduct. Seems they can do pretty much what they want.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

It is nothing new... just the same crap. He flew a flag associated with the insurrection? 

 

LOL! 

Hey, from our perspective the american flag itself is a flag associated with 'the insurrection'  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

One would think a supreme court would have a code of conduct. Seems they can do pretty much what they want.

I would tend to agree.... which apparently can be done by an act of congress. 

But biden's been in for 4 years and to the best of my knowledge hasn't proposed one. 

I'm going to guess trump doesn't  

Well... maybe the next democrat gov't will be more interested in it. Then again, i wonder if perhaps some of those dem judges have been getting some gifts too and maybe dont want the party to be messing with that. 

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

According to a left wing investigation  

And no laws broken? Hmm. 

 

The toothless law against ruling on a case in which Thomas' wife was involved (Jan 6th riots) was broken by Thomas.

But it is toothless, meaning there is no prescribed PENALTY for FAILING to RECUSE. Duh.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas chooses not to recuse himself ...

CNN

https://www.cnn.com › clarence-thomas-january-6-case

 

 

 

 

Apr 25, 2024 — Amid calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a high-stakes case over whether Donald Trump has presidential immunity from ...

 

 

 

 

Clarence Thomas must recuse in Jan. 6 cases, experts argue

NPR

https://www.npr.org › 2022/03/30 › legal-ethics-experts...

 

 

 

 

Mar 30, 2022 — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni, find themselves increasingly in the eye of an ethics storm over her repeated texts.

 

[Nationalist]

40 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The toothless law against ruling on a case in which Thomas' wife was involved (Jan 6th riots) was broken by Thomas.

But it is toothless, meaning there is no prescribed PENALTY for FAILING to RECUSE. Duh.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas chooses not to recuse himself ...

CNN

https://www.cnn.com › clarence-thomas-january-6-case

 

 

 

 

Apr 25, 2024 — Amid calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a high-stakes case over whether Donald Trump has presidential immunity from ...

 

 

 

 

Clarence Thomas must recuse in Jan. 6 cases, experts argue

NPR

https://www.npr.org › 2022/03/30 › legal-ethics-experts...

 

 

 

 

Mar 30, 2022 — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni, find themselves increasingly in the eye of an ethics storm over her repeated texts.

 

You really are a putz...ain't ya.

Its quite possible that Thomas retires in the next couple years. At which point Trump will get another SCOTUS judge pick. A younger one with even stronger traditional values and beliefs.

The level of shortsightedness and blatant stupidity is monumental in these Libbies.

[User]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

The toothless law against ruling on a case in which Thomas' wife was involved (Jan 6th riots) was broken by Thomas.

No, it wasn't. 

Thomas's wife was not involved in the January 6th riots. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, it wasn't. 

Thomas's wife was not involved in the January 6th riots. 

Meh. Neither was trump really but that doesn't stop them from including him so .... 

[User]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Meh. Neither was trump really but that doesn't stop them from including him so .... 

Robo just repeats lie after lie after lie. Its why he hides from me now. 

[Deluge]

12 hours ago, robosmith said:

An Investigation of the Ethics Challenge at the Supreme Court

Corruption abounds esp among the longest serving right wing justices.

roborunt is always coming up short of the big picture. It's why he brings stupid shit like this investigation up. He hopes it will divert attention from the democrat party. 

Little does this stunted pervert realize, however, is that the majority of Americans have recognized the filth his side has been spewing and have stepped away from it to vote for the right candidate. 

So what is the big picture? Well, it's the Far-Left's agenda, of course. 

Let's take a look at it:

https://www.conservapedia.com/Far-left

 

Edited December 24, 2024 by Deluge

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

The toothless law against ruling on a case in which Thomas' wife was involved (Jan 6th riots) was broken by Thomas.

But it is toothless, meaning there is no prescribed PENALTY for FAILING to RECUSE. Duh.

 

Of course you offered no Actual evidence, just CNN lies. So it's kind of hard to take that seriously

[robosmith]

On 12/24/2024 at 6:52 AM, Nationalist said:

You really are a putz...ain't ya.

Much better than you, the continual defender of lawlessness.

On 12/24/2024 at 6:52 AM, Nationalist said:

Its quite possible that Thomas retires in the next couple years. At which point Trump will get another SCOTUS judge pick. A younger one with even stronger traditional values and beliefs.

The level of shortsightedness and blatant stupidity is monumental in these Libbies.

Doesn't compare with your complete LACK OF MORALS.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Much better than you, the continual defender of lawlessness.

Doesn't compare with your complete LACK OF MORALS.

Lol...

[robosmith]

On 12/25/2024 at 10:55 AM, Nationalist said:

Lol...

And your belief that your complete LACK OF MORALS is funny. 🤮

[Fluffypants]

This "investigation" Dickless Durbin is complete Democrat propaganda once again they didn't even mention the giant book deal Sotomayor got from Penguin House and didn't feel the need to recuse herself from the case involving them.

[robosmith]

21 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

This "investigation" Dickless Durbin is complete Democrat propaganda once again they didn't even mention the giant book deal Sotomayor got from Penguin House and didn't feel the need to recuse herself from the case involving them.

Too bad you have NO EVIDENCE for ^this.

It's really stupid to pretend getting a book deal is equivalent to $4million+ in GIFTS made to Thomas to bribe him to stay on the court.

And Thomas not recusing on J6 clearly broke the law against him ruling on a case involving his WIFE.

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Too bad you have NO EVIDENCE for ^this.

It's really stupid to pretend getting a book deal is equivalent to $4million+ in GIFTS made to Thomas to bribe him to stay on the court.

And Thomas not recusing on J6 clearly broke the law against him ruling on a case involving his WIFE.

Do you have any evidence that he doesn't have any evidence?

[User]

16 minutes ago, robosmith said:

And Thomas not recusing on J6 clearly broke the law against him ruling on a case involving his WIFE.

No, it clearly did not break the law. 

His wife had nothing to do with it. 

You can't actually argue any of this stuff, so you hide from me. 

[User]

21 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It's really stupid to pretend getting a book deal is equivalent to $4million+ in GIFTS made to Thomas to bribe him to stay on the court.

Equivalent?

The point being made is that it was not even mentioned.