Justice Alito's luxury fishing trip underscores the Supreme Court's ethics problem - Vox
By: Li Zhou (Vox)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A new ProPublica report renews questions about justices' disclosure of gifts that could pose a conflict of interest.
By Li Zhou Jun 21, 2023, 2:30pm EDT Justice Samuel Alito sits during a group photo of the justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 23, 2021. Erin Schaff/Getty Images Li Zhou is a politics reporter at Vox, where she covers Congress and elections. Previously, she was a tech policy reporter at Politico and an editorial fellow at the Atlantic.
Justice Samuel Alito is the latest Supreme Court judge to face scrutiny over his acceptance of luxury travel and gifts, raising new questions about the Court's impartiality and legitimacy.
A ProPublica report published on Tuesday revealed that Alito accepted a trip on a private jet as well as lodging as part of a fishing excursion to Alaska in 2008. That flight was covered by a Republican donor and hedge fund manager named Paul Singer, whose business later had multiple cases before the Supreme Court that Alito did not recuse himself from.
Alito's decision not to disclose the private jet trip was a likely violation of the Ethics in Government Act, which requires the disclosure of transportation gifts, legal experts told Vox. Additionally, ethics experts say Alito's decision not to recuse himself from subsequent cases, including a major decision in 2014, could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, undermining trust in the Court's decisions.
Alito claims those legal and ethics experts are wrong. Though he did not comment directly in the ProPublica story, he did counter both allegations via a Wall Street Journal op-ed he published on Tuesday. In that op-ed, Alito argued that he did not need to disclose the travel gift because it qualified as personal "hospitality," which he argued is exempted from such rules. He also claimed that he was unaware of the connection Singer had to the business in the 2014 case he weighed in on, which is why he did not recuse himself. Alito said, too, that even if he knew of Singer's ties, he wouldn't have had to recuse himself because they did not discuss any business or cases before the court in their interactions.
"Neither charge is valid," Alito wrote.
Ethics experts note that transportation has not been exempted from disclosures in the law, and say that Alito's interpretation of such rules is a bit of a stretch. Additionally, some are calling for document reforms, arguing that information about the parties before the Court should be more transparent if Alito was unable to identify Singer's ties to the business affected in the 2014 case he oversaw.
The Alito report only compounds the attention the court has received in recent months for justices' mishandling of gift disclosures, including Justice Clarence Thomas's failure to divulge both travel and real estate sales paid for by Republican donor Harlan Crow. In the wake of these stories, there's been a growing push for lawmakers in Congress to pass legislation that would require the Court to establish an ethics code and set up an independent body that could evaluate complaints toward justices. Members of the Court, however, have been hostile to this pressure.
"It's another data point proving that something needs to be done," says David Janovsky, a policy analyst for the Project on Government Oversight. "It underscores one of the broader points that reform advocates have been making — that this is not about any one justice; this is about a systemic problem."
Alito's case renews attention on ethics issues at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is effectively in charge of regulating itself. Unlike other branches of government and even other segments of the judiciary, the Court does not have an ethics code or an independent body that would hold justices accountable for ethics violations. Instead, justices typically rely on their own judgment to determine whether a case would pose a conflict of interest and what activities require disclosure.
The reports on Alito and Thomas suggest that the body needs more external guardrails, however — as do their respective defenses. Alito and Thomas both responded to the reports by suggesting they weren't the only justices to accept gifts; as Alito put it in his op-ed, "I followed what I understood to be standard practice."
Thomas and Alito's behavior — and perhaps that of other justices — "underlines the importance of why we need legislation that would address these issues like that proposed by Sen. [Sheldon] Whitehouse and Rep. [Hank] Johnson," says Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel at CREW, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Whitehouse and Johnson's legislation, which has been dubbed the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act (SCERT), would require the Court to adopt a code of conduct, establish an investigative board that would look into complaints about the justices, and set up stricter policies around recusal.
For now, that legislation is unlikely to pass due to Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, and GOP claims that Democrats want to target justices they've appointed. Theoretically, the Supreme Court could also impose many of these changes on its own, though it's struggled to reach a consensus on an ethics code in recent years.
Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin attacked this failing in a statement following the Alito article, announcing that the Judiciary Committee would mark up Supreme Court ethics legislation in the coming weeks. "The Supreme Court is in an ethical crisis of its own making," Durbin said in a statement. "Chief Justice Roberts could resolve this today, but he has not acted."
Absent additional reforms, the most severe penalty that Alito or Thomas could face for a possible ethics violation is a fine, though the statute of limitations may have run out on some of the allegations that have been reported. Beyond a review and penalty from the Justice Department, a justice could be impeached by Congress if lawmakers believed their conduct warranted it. That outcome is also unlikely due to the political breakdown of the body at the moment. Ethics experts hope, however, that lawmakers consider other policies in order to make sure that the public maintains confidence in the courts.
"It's very destructive to the public's trust in one of the most important branches," Canter says of the ethics violations. "They are willing to jump into decisions about what kind of relationships we have, whether or not we can have children, maybe even whether or not we take contraception. They are intruding into the most private parts of our lives, and at the same time, they want to cover up their trips gallivanting halfway across the country or world."
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.
Tags
Who is online
654 visitors
Justice wrote an opinion published on the WSJ before this came out, kind of a pre-emptive strike by Alito.
So, another case of gifts not reported and it seems that the justices don't see this as a problem.
Appointed for life with an excellent salary and certainly the opportunity to enjoy a lifetime of freebies. Why would the pillars of moral standing want to be subject to GASP, ethical rules they would have to abide by? Don't cha know they are above the failing of us normal humans.
Wonder who tipped him off.
He lied about it and tried to say at first that he had no business before the court or some shit.
I use to think the justices would be some of the last people we could trust yet it now seems they are bought and paid for.
propublica reached out for comment by alito before they published the story, like all credible journalists do...
I have absolutely no trust in the supreme court - at least not the obvious scum who only are there for the perks and I believe they are bought and paid for vermin - especially Thomas and Alito.
Exactly as dev says - those bought and paid for republiscum.
gee, why do you think trumpsters are screaming so loud about corrupt and weaponized FBI and DOJ?
because they need to deflect the media attention off their bought and paid for majority on the SCOTUS.
The Supreme Beings ditched their ethics with Bush vs Gore and Citizens United.
Alito is paid stooge for the upper 1/2 of 1%.
That was the last straw for me. Used to have respect for the supremes. No more.
I actually still did until the trump era. When they undid RvW it was nothing but ideology. They just voted that a religious run business can discriminate in their hiring practices. I read an article earlier they they keep giving religious institutions freedom to break laws.
Ending RvW was to satiate the christian taliban. And further destabilize the society.
So much for the Super's neutrality. It's now a far right wing court.
To hell with life appointments!
Life appointments? Remember when Scalia died there were those in the GOP floating the idea to keep the 'dead man' on the court because they knew how he would vote? There it is. There you have it. And people really do vote for these blokes? JFC!
Lol.
Pure luxury.
So sad they had to sleep in the boat and couldn't have a campfire on the cold wet ground...
They didn't sleep in that boat. They went out for a day trip on a boat with an outboard motor, fishing tackle and lunch were probably provided and they spent the night in a warm, cozy cabin.
Caught some nice fish, tho
You obviously have no idea what it costs to stay at that ''lodge'' or the cost of fishing guides. It's over $1,000 per day per person.
As usual, you're out of bullets and shooting blanks.
Sometimes I think others do actually not...
Some just project, deflect, deny and delude.
Knew a federal judge once (a friend) who had bumper stickers made about him that said BASTA! (enough)
He was targeting the local mafia and had a contract out on his life.
Even I couldn't get in to see him in his bunker without a thorough search.
Oddly enough he would always let me keep my gun when I visited.
Seems he was only concerned with data breaches. Strange days.
the judge that married my wife and I was the judge that jailed the nuns that blocked the rail line into rocky flats nuke plant during the vietnam war. after that he had an armed bodyguard with him everywhere he went.
[✘]
... those aren't mackerel, wtf?
Here are some photos of the King Salmon Lodge where Alito had an all-expense paid trip.
So gasp...Sean lied....
Or he doesn't know what he is talking about, or being a wingman for Alito.
mackerel swim in large schools...
That's where I want to stay when we do an Alaskan fishing trip. Think they will allow a peon to stay there?
If you can come up with $1,000 a day (min 3 days) plus air fare you're in but only if your a friend of a friend of Alito's.
We have talked about it. I hope that includes the boat, the tackle, and they cook my salmon
It usually does include those items but there is a tip expected for the guides and staff. Add at least 15% per day.
Figure I'd be much happier in a tent by a trout stream in the great NorthWest.
Am already allowed to pack heat in Canada and Alaska.
Those SS folk tend to get a might skittish about other folk carrying.
We go trout fishing 2X a year. I really like salmon. I want to fish for them
Used to live in Colorado and love camping by a stream and cooking trout just minutes after catching them.
Wrapped in tin foil with butter and lemon juice on the coals of a fire.
Wrapping them in creek mud also works well. Pulls the skin right off.
Never been a catch and release sort of guy.
I catch em then cook and eat em as soon as possible.
Fox guarding the hen house.
None of them should be taking any "gifts". Ever. They should just do their jobs and pay for their own expensive vacations
But they think ''gifts'' are part of the job. Remember they are the elite we are just peons.
I'm not even allowed to let someone buy me lunch!
Ah, the trials and tribulations of a peon, life is hard when you don't have a lifetime appointment and a license to steal.
A client gave me tickets to a world series game once and my boss was mad at me until I invited her along. My girlfriend was pissed but did understand my dilemma.
While in the Coast Guard I was in contracting & purchasing. Federal laws prohibited any "gifts" above $5. The same should apply to ALL federal government workers no matter what office they are in. All federal judges should also be prohibited from speaking at partisan group engagements paid or unpaid as it shows a clear bias.
Totally agree with that, EG.
So no liberal Justice gets "gifts" and trips?
How come the liberal judges are not scrutinized?
When you find one let us know.
[ Sigh.... ] [ removed ]
Supreme Court Justice Travel: 2004-2018 - Google Sheets
And then you will pivot to what?
We know how this will play out. Someone will waste their time showing travel and gifts given to liberal justices and you will then move the goalposts to something else.
What on your spreadsheet specifically applies?
See 6
What evidence (of wrongdoing) do you have?
I can only provide you the information that lists all the free trips, i can't stop the obvious trolling you participate in.
That's what I asked you.
Every one of those trips were free? If that's true then see 6
[ removed ]
[✘]
[✘]
[removed] What part of my post do you disagree with?
That article talks mostly about Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito. Ginsburg and Breyer are no longer with the court AND AGAIN for all everyone else see my post at 6 above. I have nothing more to say.
[✘]
I said this before Sean, I don't give a damn if the justice is Republican, Democrate, independent, Green or anything else they all should be reporting everything and have a code of ethics.
Is that clear to you now?
see comment #5
It is clear from my previous comments and some of the current comments on this article that ALL justices should be held to a code of ethics and have to reports all gifts/flights/ etc. NO ONE, no matter the party should be exempt..
You got that now, George?
Please pay attention. He wanted proof that liberal justices have taken gifts. It was supplied. He deflected. As I predicted.
It's all partisan nonsense. If you can't understand it, I'm sorry for you.
LOL, stating that ALL justices should be subject to a code of ethics and reporting of all gifts isn't clear enough for you, Sean?
An insatiable need to whine seems to be your MO.
Nope - I redirected the deflection of this thread back to actual substance of the article. Here, I'll actually reiterate if for those too lazy to go back and read.
Focusing on me is your deflection from the article and shows you care about nothing more than partisan bullshit.
Nothing new from him.
[removed]
Of course they do, the difference is the right isn't rabidly investigating them in an effort to de-legitimize the court.
Imagine not understanding that's all this is. A left wing organization that refuses to disclose it donors (thus making it appear corrupt under its own standards) has been attacking the "right wing" justices at the same time Democrats in Congress plot to pack the Court.
It's amazing the hand in their backs doesn't bother them more. But I guess even puppets get used to it.
More whining, Sean? As I've said before ALL JUSTICES on SCOTUS should be held to a code of ethics, no one is exempt, do you get it now or are you going to keep whining?
So does the hand in your back hurt, or not?
By the way, for someone whose entire life appears devoted to whining, you sure do misuse the word.
About as much as the corn cob up your ass does, Sean.
Not at all Sean, I produce facts and what you produce is BS and whataboutism and of course whining which is your stock in trade.
It's like you look in the mirror and then decide to project your M.O. onto others.
Your lack of self awareness is a marvel to behold.
Speaking of self-awareness, you not only have no self-awareness but an incurable need to try to make yourself relevant with BS and whataboutisms.
And an inability to understand the written word about ALL justices, funny in a pathetic sort of way.
Wasn't it you that asked me yesterday if I had anything meaningful to say instead of insults?
Get woke, Sean!
I guess the right must be too busy doing that to the FBI and DOJ to bother, oh wait...
Deflection fail,
but, but, whatabout...
Yep, the left is trying to de-legitimize the Court by making baseless allegations against the Conservative members that never amount to anything while attempting to look pure and above it all. The electorate isn't buying that bullshit
ProPublica has promised to look into every SCOTUS judge. Wait your turn.
Naw, the trolls have to come out and play whataboutism even when they have been told that there should be a code of ethics for ALL justices and that every gift, trip, flight etc should be reported by every justice.
I know what it is! We didn't specifically come out and say ALL of them should be held to the same standard even we implied that they ALL should.
I still think it won't make a difference, tho.
4 of the justices don't appear to need any help...
Pretty sure only right wingers are corrupt.
[✘]
Fishing? He should have gone to see the Titanic.
too soon?
nah...
Now that the Three Musketeers have tried their best to derail the article and more importantly not read the comments and understand the meaning regarding ALL, it sure shines a bright light on their agenda.
Three Musketeers?
The Musketeers were brave, ethical, and had integrity. How about the 3 Stooges?
Much better.
The Three Stooges were funny how about three blind mice? (also the theme song for the Three Stooges.)
That works!
Just another Probublica hit piece on the Conservative Justices.
From the WSJ article...
“The political assault on the Supreme Court continues, and the latest Justice in the grinder is Samuel Alito,” the board wrote. “As usual, this is a non-scandal built on partisan spin intended to harm the Justice and the current Court majority.”
yeah, ...with pictures, receipts, and an admission editorial on the wsj by the compromised SCOTUS justice.
Also from the article....
"The board stated that it is defending the Supreme Court “because someone has to,” alleging that the investigations are not about sincere ethics questions but are instead about “the left’s fury at having lost control of the Court” and instead to “destroy” it."
Liberals tend to hate fascism wherever it is found.
while some of them see fascists everywhere!
I'll send a note asking them to include 'woke' at least once every paragraph.
every sentence, it's halfway into rwnj election season now...
[✘]