U.S. Supreme Court ethics should not be an oxymoron | Editorial

Try as it may, the U.S. Supreme Court’s new code of conduct does little to solve the ethical rot undermining the historically low confidence in the court.

There are numerous deficiencies with the code. For starters, the court explicitly said that “these rules and principles are not new.” So essentially nothing has changed when it comes to policing the nine members.

Yet, the new guidelines were sparked by media reports of gift-taking, luxury travel, and ethics rules violations by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

However, with no external enforcement, the justices will continue to police themselves, making the code of conduct essentially toothless.

» READ MORE: Clarence Thomas makes a mockery of ethical standards | Editorial

The rules themselves are an affront to common sense. Consider the section on recusals. A judge is supposed to step aside when there is a real or perceived conflict of interest impacting a case, but the code allows justices to disregard a recusal if they think their vote is needed.

More troubling, the financial disclosure standards remain lax. This cuts to the heart of the problem exposed by reports of Thomas’ luxury trips and dubious financial ties to Republican donors. As well as Alito’s junket on a private jet to a $1,000-a-night fishing lodge in Alaska with a hedge fund billionaire with cases before the court.

In adopting the code of conduct, the court said it was acting to “dispel the misunderstanding” that the justices lacked ethics rules. To condescendingly label what appears to be blatant corruption of the court a “misunderstanding” reeks of arrogance.

The more likely explanation as to why Thomas and Alito never disclosed the gifts is because they knew it was patently wrong. Thomas, in particular, has been a glutton when it comes to freebies from friends like billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow, who could not say for sure he would be pals with Thomas if not for his judicial robes.

Thomas received at least 38 vacations, including a yacht trip around the Bahamas, 26 private jet flights, and a dozen VIP passes to sporting events. In addition, Crow bought Thomas’ childhood home in 2014 and spent tens of thousands to renovate it while Thomas’ mother continued to live there.

Crow also paid $6,000 a month for Thomas’ nephew to attend boarding school, while another wealthy friend underwrote the $267,230 purchase of Thomas’ recreational vehicle.

Thomas never reported any of the largesse. The public only knows about it because of fine reporting, mainly by ProPublica.

What else have the justices received?

The Senate Judiciary Committee rightly called for Crow to disclose all the gifts he gave to Thomas. The committee wants other donors to disclose gifts above $415 given to Thomas and Alito. A full accounting is needed to know if the justices had conflicts in cases before them.

Some have been exposed: Alito voted with the other justices in a case that resulted in $2.4 billion for the hedge fund titan who paid for his Alaska fishing junket. Alito rejected calls to recuse himself from a tax case involving a lawyer he is connected to. After writing the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Alito went on a trip to Rome paid for by an antiabortion group that filed a friend of the court brief in the case.

» READ MORE: The Supreme Court ethics mess is today’s Watergate. Let’s treat it that way. | Will Bunch

Thomas, in turn, issued the lone dissent in a case where former President Donald Trump tried to block the release of records to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. All the while, Thomas’ wife lobbied lawmakers and the White House to overturn the 2020 election. Ethics experts said Thomas should have recused himself from the case. Thomas’ wife has her own financial conflicts that may influence her husband.

Thomas also voted with other justices to overturn a bribery conviction against a former Virginia governor in 2016, while he was enjoying luxury vacations. That ruling conveniently made it harder to convict public officials of corruption.

The scope of the handouts Thomas has received exceeds any legitimate explanation of gifts from friends. Alito has likewise demonstrated he is ethically challenged.

If Thomas and Alito had any sense of judicial propriety, they would resign. That’s not happening, so Congress must impose stronger safeguards to stop the corruption of the court.

Until then, the only checks and balances are coming from journalists.