WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal courts will not refer allegations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may have violated ethics laws to the Justice Department, the judiciary’s policymaking body said Thursday.
Thomas has agreed to follow updated requirements on reporting trips and gifts, including clearer guidelines on hospitality from friends, the U.S. Judicial Conference wrote to Democratic senators who had called for an investigation into undisclosed acceptance of luxury trips.
Thomas has previously said he wasn’t required to disclose the many trips he and his wife took that were paid for by wealthy benefactors like Republican megadonor Harlan Crow because they are close personal friends. The court didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The Supreme Court adopted its first code of ethics in 2023 in the face of sustained criticism, though the new code still lacks a means of enforcement.
It’s unclear whether the law allows the U.S. Judicial Conference to make a criminal referral regarding a Supreme Court justice, U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad wrote. He serves as secretary for the conference, which sets policy for the federal court system and is led by Chief Justice John Roberts.
A referral in this case isn’t necessary, Conrad said, because two Democratic senators called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel over the summer. No such appointment has been publicly made.
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said that the judiciary appears to be “shirking its statutory duty to hold a Supreme Court justice accountable for ethics violations.”
Conrad also sent a similar response to a separate complaint from a conservative legal group, the Center for Renewing America, in regard to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s reports on the source of her husband’s consulting income. Jackson has since amended her disclosures and also agreed to updated reporting requirements, Conrad wrote.
A spokesperson for the group, Rachel Cauley, said it was a “sad commentary” that the liberal justice’s omission would not have been noticed and corrected without their complaint.
Batmobile123 on January 3rd, 2025 at 12:43 UTC »
"Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
~ Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice
And when the very people charged with protecting the Law become the lawbreakers, anarchy is already here.
Rocketsponge on January 3rd, 2025 at 07:34 UTC »
As a federal employee, I can't accept a gift from a contractor or anyone I serve that's more than $20 in one setting, or $50 for the whole year. As a SCOTUS judge, apparently I can get unlimited private jet trips and $500k RVs.
Edit: I have a fun story to tell from my Navy days about this. Do you remember the EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft that had to make an emergency landing in China back in 2001? The crew safely landed but were held for a while by the Chinese before being returned to the US. Afterwards, H. Ross Perot, himself a Navy veteran and billionaire, wanted to gift the crew each ceremonial uniform sabers, which retail for over $400. That was obviously well above the gift limit, so Perot was having a meeting with the Navy JAG lawyers trying to figure out a solution. They were at loggerheads over the $20 gift limit, so Perot picks up the phone and calls his son Ross Jr. and says, "Hey son, I've got 24 Navy swords on my hands that I need to get rid of. How much would you give me for each of them?" Junior thinks for a minute and then replies, "Well pops, I guess I'd give you $20 dollars for each of them." At that point the Navy lawyers threw their hands up and approved the gifts of the sabers.
Synaps4 on January 3rd, 2025 at 05:36 UTC »
So in other words the president isn't the only one with blanket immunity for whatever he wants. The supreme court investigates itself...and if it ever found it did anything wrong...has no way to punish itself. Investigating a chief justice is clearly impossible since the judicial conference is led by the chief justice...and even if the chief justice wanted to take the risky move of trying to go after a fellow justice (what it fails and you have to continue being on the supreme court with this person you tried to prosecute...for life? Obvious conflict of interest.) ...even if the chief justice wanted to go after another justice the best he/she can do is a strongly worded letter!
What a joke! I wish it was a funny one, but it's not.