Supreme Court Death Penalty Louisiana

Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

A Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics began on a partisan note Tuesday, with Democrats saying they must impose a specific code of conduct for the justices because the court will not do so, and Republicans accusing them of an “unseemly” effort to tar a conservative court.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., said a cascade of recent revelations about unreported lavish travel and real estate deals would be unacceptable for an alderman, much less those members of the federal judiciary. But the court “won’t even acknowledge it’s a problem,” Durbin said. “Because the court will not act, Congress must.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-S.C., responded that the focus on Supreme Court ethics is nothing more than an “unseemly effort by the Democratic left” to raise questions about the legitimacy of the court as it has become more conservative. “This is not going to work,” he said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. last week turned down an invitation to testify from Durbin, D-Ill., instead providing a nonbinding “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” signed by all nine justices. Roberts suggested his presence at the hearing would threaten the constitutional separation of powers and noted that chief justices have attended such hearings only rarely, and only to address “mundane” topics. None of the justices attended the committee hearing.

Supreme Court Thomas

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas joins other members of the Supreme Court as they pose for a new group portrait, at the Supreme Court building in Washington on Oct. 7. J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press file

Democrats criticized the memo as an insufficient, recycled statement in response to growing ethics concerns and sinking levels of public confidence in the high court. Leading Republican lawmakers, however, have dismissed the recent scrutiny of the justices as an effort to undermine the conservative supermajority that has quickly moved the court to the right.

As the hearing began, two prominent constitutional experts – conservative former federal judge J. Michael Luttig and Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe – told the committee in prepared testimony that Congress has the power to impose a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, but cannot order the high court to come up with rules on its own.

Advertisement

Federal ethics law requires top officials from all three branches of government, including Supreme Court justices, to file annual financial disclosure forms listing outside income and investments. Lower court judges are also bound by a separate judicial code of conduct that requires judges to avoid “the appearance of impropriety in all activities” and includes a process to investigate allegations of misconduct.

The nine justices do not have such a code, though court transparency advocates and some lawmakers have long pressured the high court to adopt one. The justices have discussed but failed to reach consensus on a binding policy, The Washington Post reported earlier this year, despite talks dating to at least 2019.

The recent attention to reported ethical lapses, declining public opinion and the justices’ refusal to act has set up a potential clash between Congress and the high court.

“It is not simply a question of holding a hearing,” said Russell Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin who served on the Judiciary Committee and is now president of the American Constitution Society. “It cannot be a one-and-done kind of thing. This is far too important.”

“I’d like to see if there’s some recognition on the part of the minority party on the committee that this is wrong, and that this needs to be addressed, regardless of your political party,” Feingold said of Tuesday’s hearing, referring to the panel’s Republican members.

Several ethics experts and former federal judges are expected to testify at the hearing, which was scheduled after media reports about free luxury vacations and private jet travel that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted for more than two decades, but did not disclose, from his friend, the Republican donor and businessman Harlan Crow.

Advertisement

Thomas also did not report real estate deals funded by Crow.

Justice Clarence Thomas has reported receiving only two gifts since 2004

Separately, liberals and conservatives have debated whether Justice Neil M. Gorsuch should have disclosed that the chairman of a major law firm in 2017 bought a Colorado property in which the justice held an interest.

Supreme Court Thomas Luxury Trips

Harlan Crow attends a book release reception by The George W. Bush Institute for “The 4 Percent Solution: Unleashing the Economic Growth America Needs,” in 2012 in Dallas. LM Otero/Associated Press, file

Tribe, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Harvard, said in a letter made public Tuesday that Congress “should not be intimidated by the power and prestige of the justices, whose position of privilege – as they pass final judgment on the most contentious issues of the day from the comfort of the Marble Palace they occupy – ought to be its own reward.”

Just because the Constitution creates “one Supreme Court,” he wrote, it does not follow that it is immune from oversight by the other branches. Tribe said it is “beyond doubt that Congress has ample affirmative authority, delegated by the Constitution itself, to enact binding laws governing the nonjudicial conduct of Supreme Court Justices just as it has authority to enact such laws governing the nonjudicial conduct of lower federal court judges.”

Even as lawmakers have condemned the omissions in the justices’ financial reports and called for new rules, the closely divided Senate does not appear to have the votes to pass legislation that would impose changes.

Advertisement

Sens. Angus King, I-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, introduced legislation last week that would force the Supreme Court to create a binding code of conduct and appoint an ethics officer to oversee it within a year. A separate bill proposed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., would require the justices to adopt and follow an ethics code, impose standards for disclosing travel and gifts in line with rules for members of Congress, and create an investigative board to review complaints against justices.

While both Luttig, a conservative, and Tribe, a liberal, said Congress can require a code of conduct for the justices’ nonjudicial activity, they agreed that Congress does not have the power to require the court to prescribe such standards for itself. They suggested the bills proposed by Whitehouse, King and Murkowski are problematic because they direct a federal court to take on a lawmaking role.

“There should never come the day when the Congress of the United States is obligated to enact laws prescribing the ethical standards applicable to the nonjudicial conduct and activities of the Supreme Court of the United States, even though it indisputably has the power under the Constitution to do so, but paradoxically, does not have the power to require the Court to prescribe such standards for itself,” Luttig wrote in his letter to Congress.

Among those scheduled to testify Tuesday is Michael Mukasey, who served as attorney general under President George W. Bush and also served as a federal judge. He said in prepared testimony that it is up to the justices – not Congress – to decide whether to adopt a formal code of conduct.

“A law compelling the Court to adopt such a code, or purporting to impose one legislatively, would violate the principle of separation of powers, and would also be unworkable inasmuch as there is no authority other than the Justices themselves to apply such a code,” Mukasey wrote.

Mukasey also defended the court’s integrity and the justices who have been the subject of scrutiny. He noted that Thomas has said he will be guided in the future by updated rules that clearly require judges and justices to report private jet travel – a category that some say was ambiguous in the previous version of the rules. The criticism of Gorsuch’s failure to disclose the identity of the buyer in his property transaction, Mukasey wrote, is “meritless,” in part because the buyer said he did not know that Gorsuch was the seller until an offer had been made.

Advertisement

“If the public has a mistaken impression that the integrity of the Court has been damaged, the fault for that lies with those who continue to level unfair criticism at the Court and its Justices,” he wrote. “It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the public is being asked to hallucinate misconduct so as to undermine the authority of Justices who issue rulings with which these critics disagree, and thus to undermine the authority of the rulings themselves.”

Former federal judge Jeremy Fogel, now executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute at UC-Berkeley Law School, said in prepared remarks it was “awkward” for him to testify because he admires Roberts and understands the complications of adopting a code of ethics for the justices.

But he said the lack of code is “untenable. Too many Americans already think that the Justices decide cases based upon their political preferences and alliances rather than the law; lack of clarity about the Justices’ ethical obligations only feeds that perception.”

Fogel said the adoption of stated rules and procedures “wouldn’t make controversies about the Court or its decisions disappear, but it would be a statement to the American people that their faith in the Court’s adherence to core ethical principles maters.”

 

The Washington Post’s Theodoric Meyer contributed to this report.

Related Headlines


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: