Senate Democrats Issue Judgment on Supreme Court Ethics Standards
Sen. Dick Durbin argues that the justices have compromised the trust of the American public due to their lack of transparency regarding gifts and other ethical issues.
TroibNews 
Senate Democrats concluded their investigation into the ethics practices of Supreme Court justices on Saturday, releasing a report that criticized two conservative justices for accepting lavish gifts from wealthy donors and condemned Chief Justice John Roberts for his inadequate response to ethical issues among his colleagues.
“Now more than ever before, as a result of information gathered by subpoenas, we know the extent to which the Supreme Court is mired in an ethical crisis of its own making,” stated outgoing Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin. “Whether failing to disclose lavish gifts or failing to recuse from cases with apparent conflicts of interest, it’s clear that the justices are losing the trust of the American people at the hands of a gaggle of fawning billionaires.”
The report specifically targets Justice Clarence Thomas, alleging he received gifts worth millions since joining the court in 1991. “The number, value, and extravagance by Justice Thomas have no comparison in modern American history,” the report asserts.
Many of the trips, including a yacht and private jet trip Thomas and his wife Ginni took to Indonesia in 2019 at the invitation of billionaire developer Harlan Crow, were revealed by ProPublica last year. However, Senate Democrats claimed credit for uncovering two additional trips Crow funded for Thomas in New York, including one on a yacht.
The report also indicates that Justice Samuel Alito did not comply with federal law by omitting details of a private plane flight and lodging expenses from a 2008 fishing trip to Alaska, paid for by billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, on his annual financial disclosure form.
Both Thomas and Alito maintain that they generally adhered to the guidance provided by courts regarding “personal hospitality,” which had a broad definition that allowed for travel on private planes and boats.
Alongside their criticisms of the justices, the Senate report particularly targeted the Judicial Conference of the United States, a federal judges' body responsible for creating ethical guidelines and advising their application. Despite making adjustments to personal hospitality rules last year, Democratic senators found these changes insufficient.
“To date, the Judicial Conference has failed to adequately respond to the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis,” the report claims.
“The highest court in the land can’t have the lowest ethical standards. So long as Chief Justice Roberts and the Judicial Conference refuse to act, we must push for a legislative solution to this crisis to restore trust in the highest court,” Durbin emphasized.
Yet, the likelihood of such legislation passing appears bleak. In July 2023, Durbin’s committee approved a bill that would require the court to adopt an ethics code and establish an enforcement mechanism involving lower-court judges to address complaints. However, Republican senators unanimously opposed the bill, claiming it was a transparent effort to penalize conservative justices for their rulings on issues like abortion and gun rights. Attempts to pass it by unanimous consent in June were also met with objections from Republican senators.
With the House under Republican control and the Senate poised for a Republican takeover next month, alongside Donald Trump’s anticipated return to the White House, the chances of advancing Supreme Court ethics legislation seem grim.
“It is really about the way the court decides cases that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don’t like,” remarked Sen. Lindsey Graham earlier this year.
Conservative attorney Mark Paoletta, closely associated with Justice Thomas and representing his wife Ginni, sought to counter the Senate report prior to its release. “This entire investigation was never about ‘ethics’ but about trying to undermine the Supreme Court because the Court is no longer acting like a super legislature handing down opinions implementing the Democrats’ political agenda,” Paoletta expressed on X.
“Justice Thomas and Justice Alito COMPLIED with the laws, regulations, advice, and Judicial Conference rulings regarding the reporting of trips with friends. It was not required…no matter what Durbin and Whitehouse claim or wish,” Paoletta added.
Though the report criticizes the court’s ethical shortcomings, the scrutiny from lawmakers and the media did seemingly motivate the justices to respond to calls for more stringent ethics practices. As public criticism mounted, the court compromised twice: in April 2023, they publicly endorsed a set of ethics principles, and in November, they unanimously adopted an ethics code. However, critics, including the Senate Democrats who authored the new report, were dissatisfied, noting the absence of an enforcement mechanism and the diluting of certain language between the initial and subsequent announcements.
Nevertheless, in light of public comments from Thomas, Alito, and their supporters asserting that the ethics complaints were insincere attacks, the emergence of any consensus among the nine justices on ethical matters represented a significant step for Roberts in his attempts to restore the court’s credibility.
“It’s remarkable we were able to agree unanimously,” Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in August.
This public agreement was fleeting. Justice Elena Kagan later publicly supported the idea of implementing some form of external enforcement. “We could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this,” she expressed in July. While the court’s other liberal justices showed openness to the concept, many conservatives remained opposed.
Although the report primarily targets Thomas and to a lesser degree Alito, it also addresses controversies involving books authored by other justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Gorsuch. Questions arose about Sotomayor’s aides promoting her book sales, raising concerns regarding the use of official staff for personal endeavors. Both justices also faced scrutiny for not recusing themselves from cases involving the publisher that provided them with large advances.
The report also criticizes the justices for their failure to recuse from specific cases, asserting that Justice Alito should have stepped back from matters related to the 2020 election due to his wife Martha-Ann Alito’s associations with the Stop the Steal movement, and Justice Thomas should have recused himself from cases concerning Donald Trump because of Ginni Thomas’ political activities and her outreach to the Trump White House regarding the 2020 election results.
However, the report does not cover ethics and transparency issues raised in recent years surrounding the income sources of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s husband, Patrick Jackson, a surgeon who “periodically” consults on court cases, nor the legal recruiting activities of Roberts’ wife, Jane Roberts.
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
“Now more than ever before, as a result of information gathered by subpoenas, we know the extent to which the Supreme Court is mired in an ethical crisis of its own making,” stated outgoing Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin. “Whether failing to disclose lavish gifts or failing to recuse from cases with apparent conflicts of interest, it’s clear that the justices are losing the trust of the American people at the hands of a gaggle of fawning billionaires.”
The report specifically targets Justice Clarence Thomas, alleging he received gifts worth millions since joining the court in 1991. “The number, value, and extravagance by Justice Thomas have no comparison in modern American history,” the report asserts.
Many of the trips, including a yacht and private jet trip Thomas and his wife Ginni took to Indonesia in 2019 at the invitation of billionaire developer Harlan Crow, were revealed by ProPublica last year. However, Senate Democrats claimed credit for uncovering two additional trips Crow funded for Thomas in New York, including one on a yacht.
The report also indicates that Justice Samuel Alito did not comply with federal law by omitting details of a private plane flight and lodging expenses from a 2008 fishing trip to Alaska, paid for by billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, on his annual financial disclosure form.
Both Thomas and Alito maintain that they generally adhered to the guidance provided by courts regarding “personal hospitality,” which had a broad definition that allowed for travel on private planes and boats.
Alongside their criticisms of the justices, the Senate report particularly targeted the Judicial Conference of the United States, a federal judges' body responsible for creating ethical guidelines and advising their application. Despite making adjustments to personal hospitality rules last year, Democratic senators found these changes insufficient.
“To date, the Judicial Conference has failed to adequately respond to the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis,” the report claims.
“The highest court in the land can’t have the lowest ethical standards. So long as Chief Justice Roberts and the Judicial Conference refuse to act, we must push for a legislative solution to this crisis to restore trust in the highest court,” Durbin emphasized.
Yet, the likelihood of such legislation passing appears bleak. In July 2023, Durbin’s committee approved a bill that would require the court to adopt an ethics code and establish an enforcement mechanism involving lower-court judges to address complaints. However, Republican senators unanimously opposed the bill, claiming it was a transparent effort to penalize conservative justices for their rulings on issues like abortion and gun rights. Attempts to pass it by unanimous consent in June were also met with objections from Republican senators.
With the House under Republican control and the Senate poised for a Republican takeover next month, alongside Donald Trump’s anticipated return to the White House, the chances of advancing Supreme Court ethics legislation seem grim.
“It is really about the way the court decides cases that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don’t like,” remarked Sen. Lindsey Graham earlier this year.
Conservative attorney Mark Paoletta, closely associated with Justice Thomas and representing his wife Ginni, sought to counter the Senate report prior to its release. “This entire investigation was never about ‘ethics’ but about trying to undermine the Supreme Court because the Court is no longer acting like a super legislature handing down opinions implementing the Democrats’ political agenda,” Paoletta expressed on X.
“Justice Thomas and Justice Alito COMPLIED with the laws, regulations, advice, and Judicial Conference rulings regarding the reporting of trips with friends. It was not required…no matter what Durbin and Whitehouse claim or wish,” Paoletta added.
Though the report criticizes the court’s ethical shortcomings, the scrutiny from lawmakers and the media did seemingly motivate the justices to respond to calls for more stringent ethics practices. As public criticism mounted, the court compromised twice: in April 2023, they publicly endorsed a set of ethics principles, and in November, they unanimously adopted an ethics code. However, critics, including the Senate Democrats who authored the new report, were dissatisfied, noting the absence of an enforcement mechanism and the diluting of certain language between the initial and subsequent announcements.
Nevertheless, in light of public comments from Thomas, Alito, and their supporters asserting that the ethics complaints were insincere attacks, the emergence of any consensus among the nine justices on ethical matters represented a significant step for Roberts in his attempts to restore the court’s credibility.
“It’s remarkable we were able to agree unanimously,” Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in August.
This public agreement was fleeting. Justice Elena Kagan later publicly supported the idea of implementing some form of external enforcement. “We could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this,” she expressed in July. While the court’s other liberal justices showed openness to the concept, many conservatives remained opposed.
Although the report primarily targets Thomas and to a lesser degree Alito, it also addresses controversies involving books authored by other justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Gorsuch. Questions arose about Sotomayor’s aides promoting her book sales, raising concerns regarding the use of official staff for personal endeavors. Both justices also faced scrutiny for not recusing themselves from cases involving the publisher that provided them with large advances.
The report also criticizes the justices for their failure to recuse from specific cases, asserting that Justice Alito should have stepped back from matters related to the 2020 election due to his wife Martha-Ann Alito’s associations with the Stop the Steal movement, and Justice Thomas should have recused himself from cases concerning Donald Trump because of Ginni Thomas’ political activities and her outreach to the Trump White House regarding the 2020 election results.
However, the report does not cover ethics and transparency issues raised in recent years surrounding the income sources of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s husband, Patrick Jackson, a surgeon who “periodically” consults on court cases, nor the legal recruiting activities of Roberts’ wife, Jane Roberts.
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
