A second conservative justice of the US Supreme Court finds himself in the hot seat because he benefited from the largesse of a wealthy billionaire without declaring it or subsequently recusing himself from cases to which the man was linked.
ProPublica revealed earlier this week that Judge Samuel Alito flew to Alaska in 2008 aboard the private jet of Paul Singer, who runs a major investment fund, to go on a fishing trip.
The investigative site calculated that chartering such a device would have cost the magistrate nearly $100,000.
No mention was made of the situation in the annual financial statement of the judge, who voted in favor of Mr. Singer’s fund a few years later in a case against the Argentine state.
Rather than answer ProPublica’s questions, the magistrate decided in an unusual way to publish an open letter in the editorial section of the wall street journal where he accuses the media of distorting the facts.
Samuel Alito pointed out that he was not required to report air travel because it is a mark of “personal hospitality” that can be excluded from annual financial statements.
The judge also assured that he was not aware that certain cases dealt with by the court in his presence were linked to Mr. Singer.
Several ethicists have dismissed his claims, saying he misinterprets laws governing the behavior of federal judges and their transparency obligations.
“Extraordinary access”
ProPublica had already raised questions about the ethical oversight of judges in the highest court in the land a few months ago by publishing a series of revelations about the links between Judge Clarence Thomas and another billionaire, Harlan Crow.
He too said he had nothing to reproach himself for, even though he admitted having accepted several trips paid for over the years by the wealthy Republican donor, described as a close friend, without declaring them.
PHOTO EVELYN HOCKSTEIN, ARCHIVESREUTERS
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Mr. Crow also bought a house where the magistrate’s mother lived and carried out extensive renovations, again without the transaction appearing in the magistrate’s annual declaration.
According to the organization Project on Government Oversight, Clarence Thomas had good reason to want to keep the situation under wraps since the gifts received allowed the businessman to obtain “extraordinary access”.
The case caused a stir and prompted the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to testify.
He refused the invitation, arguing that such an intervention would risk undermining the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches provided for in the Constitution.
The Chief Justice indicated at the same time that the Supreme Court was inspired by the provisions of the code of conduct developed for federal judges even if its members are not formally required to follow it.
An investigation demanded
Gabe Roth, who runs Fix the Court, an organization working to make federal courts more transparent and accountable to the public, thinks the revelations about Samuel Alito will hurt the image of the influential court’s judges and reinforce the impression that they “paradoxically” think they are above the law.
It is hard to like the fact that Supreme Court justices travel around the country on the private jets of billionaires, even less when we know that they have cases to argue in court.
Gabe Roth, leader of Fix the Court
Lower court judges who committed similar misconduct would be held to account and risked severe penalties, he said.
In the case of the Supreme Court justices, several organizations are urging the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, to open an investigation to determine if substantial fines can be imposed on them.
The fact that Mr. Garland was proposed by the administration of Barack Obama as a Supreme Court justice before being blocked by Republican senators could, however, give the impression, in a politically charged context, that he is seeking to settle his accounts.
Mr. Roth agrees that his position “is not easy”. It is nonetheless crucial, notes the activist, that the judges involved are held accountable for their behavior.
The Congress, which intervened last year to revise certain provisions framing the ethical obligations of federal judges, should intervene to give a new turn of the screw targeting the Supreme Court, notes the representative of Fix the Court.
“It seems to me that Supreme Court justices who go ahead with a contested conservative agenda should be very careful to dismiss any allegations affecting their ethics as soon as possible,” concludes Mr. Roth.