Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Thursday, April 25, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Senate Democrats call bunk on claims that SCOTUS ethics probe is unconstitutional

Lawmakers are investigating relationships between prominent conservative figures and the high court’s justices, but detractors have argued that the effort violates the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

WASHINGTON (CN) — As the Supreme Court begins its fall session, Senate Democrats are again ramping up their probe into the ethical conduct of its justices, demanding yet again that a group of figures key to the investigation turn over financial records and other information.

Led by Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Durbin, lawmakers have for months pressed for the Supreme Court to adopt a formal code of ethics — the high court has rules governing financial disclosures, but no explicit guidelines for ethical conduct. If the court won’t seize the initiative on such a code, Democrats have advanced a bill that would force its hand.

The legislative push comes amid a steady stream of reports that several Supreme Court justices have engaged in ethically questionable behavior. At the center of this controversy is Justice Clarence Thomas, whose relationship with conservative megadonor Harlan Crow drew scrutiny following reports that the billionaire real estate developer has over the years lavished the jurist with luxury vacations and other high-dollar gifts.

Senate Democrats, investigating Thomas’s conduct, have demanded that Crow turn over reams of financial records detailing travel, lodging and other gifts given to the jurist over the years. Lawmakers made similar requests to Leonard Leo, a conservative activist who has also been embroiled in ethical controversy surrounding Justice Samuel Alito.

Both men have so far rebuffed those demands, arguing that the Senate’s effort to legislate Supreme Court ethics reform runs afoul of the Constitution — specifically, its separation of powers doctrine which establishes Congress and the judiciary as two separate but equal branches of government.

“Congress cannot conduct an investigation in connection with legislation that it cannot constitutionally enact,” wrote Leo’s attorney David Rivkin in a July letter to lawmakers.

Durbin, however, said Thursday that such a defense holds no water, writing in letters to Crow, Leo and billionaire Robin Arkley that the argument “is at odds with basic separation-of-powers principles favoring checks and balances.”

In the letter to Leo, signed by all judiciary committee Democrats, Durbin contended that Congress has had a hand in crafting several of the Supreme Court’s institutions. Among those, the lawmaker cited the U.S. Judicial Conference and “a number of longstanding judicial ethics-related laws” which the high court has adhered to “without complaint.”

The Illinois Democrat also rejected Leo’s argument that the inquiry into his relationships with Supreme Court justices was personal political retaliation, calling that charge “frivolous” and saying it “mischaracterizes the focus of the Committee’s investigation.”

Durbin pushed back on complaints leveled by Leo and Crow that other justices who have been accused of ethically dubious conduct — such as Justice Sonia Sotomayor who reportedly had court staff promote book sales — were being ignored.

“[A]ll the conduct you cite was properly disclosed,” Durbin wrote, “whereas the Committee’s investigation focuses on the problem of undisclosed conduct. As undisclosed gifts by wealthy benefactors continue to be revealed, one commonality in these reports is your connection to the undisclosed gifts from these benefactors.”

In a separate letter to Crow, Durbin tossed a proposed compromise from the billionaire’s team, under which he would provide limited details about his gifts to Justice Thomas over a five-year period. In exchange, Democrats would agree to drop their probe into the megadonor’s financial records.

Such a deal was unacceptable for lawmakers, who have demanded Crow turn over itemized lists disclosing all travel, lodging and other expenses over $415 that he covered for the jurist.

“Receiving partial responses during this arbitrary time period is insufficient to inform the Committee’s ongoing legislative efforts,” Durbin told Crow. “Parties with matters before the Court continue to take advantage of access to justices made possible by both disclosed and undisclosed transportation, lodging, and other gifts.”

ADVERTISEMENT

A five-year window would not help Democrats get “a comprehensive understanding” of Crow’s relationship with Justice Thomas, the lawmaker said, arguing that the billionaire’s gifts to the jurist stretch back more than two decades.

Durbin gave Crow a chance to make another offer by Oct. 19.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Crow’s office told Courthouse News that it was “disappointing that after many months of good faith efforts to voluntarily cooperate with the Judiciary Committee despite serious constitutional concerns about its inquiry, members of one party forced the committee to reject a mutually respectful compromise.”

“The committee’s rejection of a reasonable compromise offered in the spirit of transparency underscores that this is a political campaign designed to discredit a sitting Supreme Court Justice and not a legitimate effort to legislate,” Crow’s office said.

Crow also appeared reticent to strike another compromise with Senate Democrats, saying that it was “difficult to imagine a basis or a need for further cooperation” since the judiciary panel has already passed Supreme Court ethics legislation.

“[W]e remain hopeful both parties can work toward a satisfactory resolution,” the statement concluded.

A spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee declined to comment.

In the months since the initial revelations about his ethical conduct, Thomas has been caught up in a flurry of reports about similar lapses. Most recently, investigative journalism outfit ProPublica reported in September that the justice had secretly attended a private conference hosted by the Koch network. The conservative organization is backing a major case set to go before the Supreme Court this term.

Thomas has also reportedly failed to comply with federal disclosure laws binding high court justices.

Meanwhile, the Senate’s effort to legislate Supreme Court ethics reform is awaiting a floor vote. Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act passed the judiciary committee on a party-line vote over the summer.

If made law, the measure would mandate that the high court adopt a formal code of ethical conduct, and that the process for developing such standards should be done in the public eye. The bill would also create an investigative board, composed of federal judges, that would analyze ethics complaints against Supreme Court justices.

Republicans have widely panned the effort as partisan hackery, accusing Democrats of trying to muzzle the conservative-dominated high court in retaliation for some of its recent rulings.

“This is a bill not designed to make the court stronger and more ethical,” said South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham during a July hearing of the judiciary panel. “It is a bill to destroy a conservative court, to create a situation where conservative judges can be disqualified by statute and to rearrange the makeup of how the court governs itself.”

Justice Alito, also facing questions about his ethical conduct following reports that he went on a 2008 fishing trip organized by Leo, has also blasted Senate Democrats for trying to reform the high court.

“Congress did not create the Supreme Court,” the jurist said in an August interview with Wall Street Journal editorial features editor James Taranto. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Alito’s comments drew criticism from Senate Democrats, who accused him of using his platform to unfairly put his finger on the scales against the proposed bill. Some experts suggested that Alito’s intervention was particularly inappropriate since the measure in question had yet to become law, and that a challenge to such legislation could come before the Supreme Court.

The Wall Street Journal article was also co-written by David Rivkin, Leo’s lawyer who is also slated to argue a major tax case before the high court this fall. Alito has so far refused to recuse himself from that case.

Without congressional action requiring the high court to adopt a formal code of ethics, such reforms would have to be self-motivated. During a September appearance at an event held by Notre Dame Law School, Justice Elena Kagan said that she thought an ethics code would be good for the court.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss
Categories / Courts, National

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...