[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – In the latest in a series of ethics revelations involving members of the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged Tuesday that he flew to Alaska for a fishing trip on a private jet in 2008 that belonged to a hedge fund manager who repeatedly brought cases before the high court.
Alito, among the court’s most senior conservative justices, defended the trip in an unusual Wall Street Journal op-ed that was a reaction to a ProPublica story that had not yet been published. The piece was ultimately posted on ProPublica’s website hours later on Tuesday.
The extraordinary response appeared to reflect the position the nation’s highest court now finds itself in − under siege from a series of stories involving private jet travel, luxury vacations and property sales not reported on financial disclosure forms. The reports have prompted hearings on Capitol Hill and threats from Senate Democrats to impose a code of ethics on the justices.
The latest ProPublica story alleges Alito accepted a private jet flight to Alaska from Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire, whose entities came before the court at least 10 times in recent years. Alito did not disclose the jet travel and did not recuse from the cases involving entities tied to Singer.
Tracker:Race, religion and debt. Here are the biggest cases pending at the Supreme Court
Occupying an unoccupied seat
On that much, at least, Alito appears to agree with the ProPublica report. However, Alito wrote in the Wall Street Journal that justices “commonly interpreted” a hospitality exemption to disclosure requirements to include “accommodations and transportation for social events.” By accepting the travel and not reporting it, he said, he “followed what I understood to be standard practice.” Alito said he never discussed cases with Singer and that “he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska.”
Regarding the lack of recusal, Alito wrote that even if he had been aware of Singer’s role in the cases before the court “recusal would not have been required or appropriate.” But, Alito said, he was not aware of Singer’s involvement because he personally was not a named party in the cases at issue.
It is highly unusual for justices to submit an op-ed for any reason, let alone to do so as a response to a forthcoming news story. Earlier this year, Alito granted an interview that was published in the Journal in which he said he had a “pretty good idea” who was responsible for the leak last year of a draft opinion in the high court’s abortion case.
The latest revelations, which arrive as the Supreme Court is in the final weeks of a term that began in October, follow a series of stories in ProPublica earlier this year that revealed private jet trips and luxury yacht travel Justice Clarence Thomas accepted from GOP donor Harlan Crow. ProPublica reported that Crow also purchased property from Thomas and his family – none of which was reported on annual disclosure forms.
Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged last month that the ethics debate has become an “issue of concern inside the court,” but there has been little indication of many changes made to respond to that concern. The policymaking body for federal courts, the Judicial Conference of the United States, adopted tighter reporting requirements earlier this year that make clear that private jet travel should be disclosed in future reports.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that the Supreme Court was “in an ethical crisis of its own making” and said that the committee would take up legislation on ethics at the court next month.
“We hope that before that time, Chief Justice Roberts will take the lead and bring Supreme Court ethics in line with all other federal judges,” Durbin said. “But if the court won’t act, then Congress must.”
More:‘Incalculable’ impact: Three ways the Supreme Court abortion decision changed the USA
[ad_2]
Source link
