Liberal justices caught up in Supreme Court ethics scrutiny
Scrutiny of visits to colleges made by Supreme Court justices has now drawn attention to the court’s liberal wing as calls for stronger ethics rules for those who sit on the bench grow louder.
Investigative reporting by The Associated Press, published Tuesday, detailed how schools courted donors to attend the events, enabled encounters between justices and elected officials and provided opportunities for the justices to luxuriate in places like Hawaii and Europe for agreeing to light teaching responsibilities.
The report found the visits were made by justices across ideological lines, most notably including accusations that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff pushed colleges to purchase her books when she traveled to their schools.
Justices’ speaking engagements at universities are nothing new, but their travels have faced increasing scrutiny in recent years as stories emerged about wealthy activists’ efforts to buy access.
The investigation also comes as Senate Democrats prepare to push a Supreme Court ethics bill, an effort they renewed in the wake of ProPublica’s recent reporting into undisclosed trips accepted by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from billionaires and major political donors.
Republicans have viewed the push for the justices to adopt a binding code of ethics with scorn, portraying it as an attempt to tear down the conservative majority, given the recent scrutiny has specifically surrounded Thomas and Alito, two of the court’s leading conservatives.
“This is a global problem across the ideological spectrum, and to me, there’s obvious solutions,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of nonpartisan watchdog group Fix the Court.
“But it keeps the conversation going,” he added. “The ethics issue is not Clarence Thomas flew on a private plane and vacationed in a yacht, the ethics problems at the Supreme Court are clearly much greater than those events with that one justice.”
The AP investigation in part detailed how Sotomayor’s aide pushed colleges and a library to purchase additional copies of her book when she traveled there for speaking engagements.
“250 books is definitely not enough. Families purchase multiples and people will be upset if they are unable to get in line because the book required is sold out,” an assistant purportedly wrote in an August 2019 email about the justice’s upcoming book talk in Portland, Ore.
Steven Lubet, professor of law emeritus at Northwestern University, said there’s nothing wrong with a justice accepting book royalties, but leveraging staff would be improper.
“I think there is a line between facilitating the appearance and facilitating the sales,” said Lubet. “And I do think that it’s wrong for staff to ensure that there are enough books on hand. The explanation that they don’t want anybody to be disappointed did not make sense to me.”
In 2018, Michigan State University gave copies of one of Sotomayor’s books to incoming first-year students.
The AP reported that court employees took the books to Sotomayor’s chambers so she could sign them and send them to the school, which paid more than $100,000 for them.
A school spokesperson told The Hill that Sotomayor’s book was selected as the 2018 title for the “One Book One Community” initiative, in which a book is selected annually for school and community members to enjoy.
“This is a joint effort between the city of East Lansing and Michigan State University. While MSU did purchase copies of the book to give to incoming first year students (and does for the selected book most years), the selection of the book is done via a joint committee of university and community members,” the spokesperson said while adding she visited the school.
Sotomayor previously has received criticism for not recusing herself from multiple cases involving Penguin Random House, which published her books and provided Sotomayor payments totaling more than $3 million, according to her financial disclosures.
“An inadvertent omission failed to bring Penguin’s participation in several cases to her attention; those cases ultimately were not selected for review by the Court. Chambers’ conflict check procedures have since been changed,” the court said in a statement to the AP.
The court did not return The Hill’s request for further comment.
The AP’s investigation also details several instances in which schools looked to invite major donors to gatherings so they could mingle with a justice during their visit.
Before Sotomayor’s 2017 visit to Clemson University, the AP reported that officials wrote they hoped the visit would “drive awareness” and “ultimately, generate resources.” When Thomas visited McLennan Community College, the executive director of the school’s foundation reportedly said she had thoughts about who to invite to a dinner with the justice, “mainly because they are wealthy conservative Catholics who would align with Clarence Thomas and who have not previously given.”
When liberal Justice Elena Kagan visited the University of Colorado’s law school in 2019, one organizer reportedly suggested a “larger donor to staff ratio” for a dinner with the justice, and another mulled “VIP donors” the college “would like to cultivate relationships with.”
A University of Colorado Boulder spokesperson told The Hill, “No solicitations to any of these attendees were made before, during or after the event, and no gifts were made to the law school by these attendees as a result of the event.”
In its statement to the AP, the Supreme Court said it routinely asks organizers for confirmation that the justice’s appearance is not a fundraiser and provides a definition of what it considers fundraisers. The AP reported that Sotomayor’s aide rejected an offer for her to dine with donors when she visited a school in 2012.
The AP’s investigation further detailed multiple justices’ arrangements with universities to teach in places like Hawaii, Iceland and Italy while the court was out of session.
Justices are encouraged to teach as long as they comply with an approximately $30,000 cap on outside income — which does not apply to book earnings — and many of the trips were previously known. But the AP found the itineraries were light on classroom instruction and gave the justices significant time for leisure.
“Safe travels — I see nothing wrong with that,” said Lubet. “And I would far rather see the justices doing that with educational institutions than with wealthy political donors.”
Thomas and Alito’s undisclosed trips were both funded by billionaires who had donated significant sums to conservative political causes.
Roth said the revelations all show how the justices need “hard and fast” ethics rules that align with requirements for lawmakers.
“I know it sort of sounds sort of weird to say Congress does it great, but if you’re a member of Congress, you can’t stay anywhere for a week for free, right, if you’re only participating in a day’s worth of events,” said Roth. “If you’re a member of Congress, you can’t use official resources to sell your books.”
Source: The Hill
