By: Allison Wong
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024
I. Background
On November 13th, 2023 the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) issued a Code of Conduct for Justices signed by Justices John G. Roberts Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. [1] The Code includes a one-page statement, a nine-page set of five canons, and a five-page commentary outlining ethical guidelines, rules, and regulations for Justice conduct. [2] Although the Code intends to specify and reiterate values and principles already espoused by the SCOTUS, this is the first time in the Court’s history that they have been explicitly outlined. Topics covered include judicial impartiality and independence, avoidance of impropriety, extrajudicial activities, conflicting interests, and the process of self-recusal. [3]
The issuance of the Code occurred in the wake of media reports on Justice conduct and subsequent declining public confidence in SCOTUS. [4] Exposed misconduct included the acceptance of gifts, property deals, luxury travel opportunities, paid expenses for family members, and the pattern of receiving these benefits without disclosing them to the public. [5] Personal and financial connections with wealthy donors and partisan groups exacerbated concerns over judicial impartiality and independence. For example, Justice Clarence Thomas has ties with Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow, who paid tuition for a relative Thomas raised as a son and a house for Thomas’ mother. [6] Additionally, Justice Thomas’ spouse, Virginia Thomas, was involved in the lead-up to the insurrection on January 6th, 2021 through White House communications, the furthering of conspiracy theories, and the intention to dispute the results of the 2020 election. [7] Her activism in the GOP arena was called into question when Justice Thomas chose to remain on the bench to hear cases related to January 6th, rather than recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. [8] Justice Samuel Alito had ties with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, a major donor to the GOP, who provided an all-expense paid luxury vacation. [9] This incident raised further concern when Justice Alito chose to remain on the bench when Singer appeared in court. [10] Combined with other instances of Justices’ misconduct and breaches of impartiality, the SCOTUS issued the Code under pressure to do so by lawmakers, government officials, media outlets, and the public.
Functioning without an explicit code has made SCOTUS an outlier, a status attributed to its constitutional exceptionalism as the highest court in the United States, not subject to the scrutiny of other judicial oversight. The Code acknowledges this distinction when it reads, “This Commentary does not adopt the extensive commentary from the lower court Code, much of which is inapplicable. It instead is tailored to the Supreme Court’s placement at the head of a branch of our tripartite governmental structure.” [11] Federal judges at the appellate and district levels operate in accordance with the Code of Conduct for United States Justices adopted on April 5th, 1973. [12] Similarities exist between the two codes, as they both utilize a five-canon structure surrounding topics of judicial impartiality and independence.
Despite the similar structural components, a main difference arises in the enforcement of the Codes, or lack thereof. Lower court judges are kept within the guidelines of ethics codes because allegations of their misconduct are dealt with by judicial panels. [13] In the case that bias or personal interest is found, lower court judges can be more easily replaced with another judge for a particular case. [14] On the other hand, the Code issued by SCOTUS relies on the Justices to police themselves, expecting that they will keep their personal interests in check. Additionally, the process of disqualification is much more complicated because Justices cannot be replaced in the same way lower court judges can. If a Justice chooses to self-recuse to avoid personal bias, there will simply be one fewer Justice on the bench that hears the case. [15] Because there are only nine Justices, the recusal of one or multiple Justices can significantly impact results. [16]
In regards to gifts and financial disclosures, all federal officials are subject to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and the subsequent Ethics Reform Act of 1989 which imposed requirements on the disclosure of financial documents and interests in the wake of the Watergate scandal and wavering public confidence in government officials. [17] Ethics guidelines necessitate the disclosure of income, gifts, debts, dividends, and other financial information in order to ensure transparency with constituents and the broader American public. [18] The Judicial Conference, a Congressional administrative body in charge of interpreting the Ethics in Government Act, has significant authority over lower court judges in making sure they abide by these guidelines. [19] The Conference evaluates complaints to determine whether or not they are intentional, willful violations. [20] Violations result in the use of civil or criminal penalties through the Attorney General. [21] However, SCOTUS has the power to disagree with the Judicial Conference’s interpretations without a higher court to overrule those appeals. [22] This lack of legal binding gives Justices the ability to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis to avoid taking accountability for financial gifts and interests or incurring penalties for misconduct. On both fronts of ethical and financial guidelines, therefore, SCOTUS Justices have avoided the consequences of violations through loopholes of constitutional exceptionalism. [23] The issuance of the SCOTUS Code of Conduct serves a nominal purpose in explicitly outlining the rules and regulations governing Justices, yet fails to ensure genuine accountability with its use of vague, subjective language and its reliance on the honor system as its sole enforcement mechanism.
II. Elements of the SCOTUS Code of Conduct
The Code of Conduct begins with a statement regarding the values and principles of SCOTUS and the intention to reiterate—rather than create—ethics rules that have implicitly bound Justices throughout history. [24] These implicit expectations originate from historical precedent, interpretations of the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, statutory provisions, and guidelines for federal judges of lower courts. [25] Following the statement of intent, the Code of Conduct includes five canons, each with varying focus and level of specification, accompanied by interpretation in the form of commentary. [26]
Beginning with overarching principles, the first canon broadly discusses the importance of an independent and integrous judiciary, the foundation for the rest of the canons. [27] The principle of judicial independence originated from The Federalist #78 where Alexander Hamilton argued that courts play an integral role in maintaining the rule of law. [28] In addition to serving as an intermediate between the people and Congress, courts are responsible for interpreting the U.S. Constitution as a set of fundamental laws equally applied to all people and institutions. [29] Federal appointments, life terms, and regulations on salary help maintain judicial independence. [30] Judges, therefore, can interpret the law without fear of losing their job or facing punitive salary reductions after issuing potentially unpopular decisions. [31]
The second canon discusses avoidance of impropriety, specifically requiring justices to follow the law, avoid conflicts without outside interests, and refrain from participation in discriminatory organizations. [32] In regards to outside influences, Justices should not only refrain from making judgments clouded by financial, political, social, and family connections, but also ensure that there is no doubt or impression of doing so. [33] Failure of Justices to maintain high standards of conduct weakens the judiciary because it allows personal interests and connections to overshadow the law. Hamilton’s emphasis on legal accountability cannot be realized if Justices prioritize monetary or personal gains over independence and integrity.
The third canon clarifies the meaning of judicial impartiality by outlining the process of self-recusal. A recusal statute passed by Congress in 1792 set the first precedent for prohibiting the participation of judges in cases involving interest or parties they were of counsel for. [34] The Code espouses these founding principles by requiring justices to avoid the influences of partisan politics, public criticism, and personal interests when exercising their duties, and disqualify themselves from a case if that is not possible. [35] Conflicts of interest are specified as including personal bias, prior legal representation, financial interest, familiarity within a third degree of relationship (whole, half, and step-relatives), and prior conflicting formal statements. [36] The guideline on this front is if a Justice’s impartiality can be “reasonably questioned.” [37] A Justice is allowed to serve on a case if they participated in an amicus brief or if they divest in the conflicting financial interest. [38] Additionally, the third canon prohibits Justices from making public comments in regard to in-progress cases and judicial matters, as these statements influence their ability to perform their official duties while degrading public confidence in the impartiality and independence of SCOTUS as a whole. [39]
This issue of recusal brought up in the third canon is paired with significant limitations set by the Code. Specifically, the third canon states, “The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification.” [40] The Code’s commentary specifies that the loss of even one Justice has a significant impact on SCOTUS decision-making, especially with the universal rule of needing five votes to win a case, under the assumption that there are nine Justices on the bench. [41] Self-disqualification is relatively uncommon, with Justices only recusing themselves in three percent of appeals from 2018 to 2023. [42] The Code’s commentary urges Justices to consider the recusal standard narrowly, especially in the cases of more distant, third-degree relationships that may not contribute to as much bias. [43] The process of recusal itself is conducted by individual judges under their own evaluation of bias, rather than an enforcement procedure through the Court. [44]
The fourth canon discusses the rules and regulations surrounding extrajudicial activities and the extent to which they relate to SCOTUS responsibilities. [45] Justices are permitted to teach, write, and speak, and participate in non-profit organizations on matters related to law and justice, as long as groups and events are nonpartisan and free of commercial interest. [46] This allows for flexibility in regard to cultural, academic, religious, and legal organization affiliation or membership. [47] The Code’s commentary explains this flexibility by writing, “Participation in both law-related and other judicial activities helps integrate Justices into their communities and furthers public understanding of and respect for the judicial system.” [48] In regards to fundraising events, public hearings, and governmental appointments, the overall guiding principle, “a Justice should consider whether doing so would create an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public.” [49] The Code does directly ban Justices, however, from acting as an arbitrator, mediator, or family lawyer beyond providing legal advice without compensation for a relative. [50] In regards to conflicting financial interests, the fourth canon cites the Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts for further detail. [51] The Code’s commentary emphasizes that Justices must follow the same guidelines for financial disclosure as other federal judges. [52] These disclosures include gifts, reimbursements, investments, and non-governmental income. [53]
Lastly, the fifth canon reiterates that Justices should be removed from any political activity such as participation in a political campaign, running for office, or holding a position of political office. [54] The Federalist #78 grounds these guidelines in the importance of maintaining judicial independence and ensuring that judges focus on interpreting the law rather than catering to partisan interests. [55]
The ending notes of the Code’s commentary include other regulations that Justices must abide by the US Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause and Due Process Clause. [56] Additionally, they must abide by the Ethics in Government Act, the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act. [57] Other guidance can be taken from scholars, articles, the executive and legislative branches, lower court justices, ethics authorities, colleagues, judicial decisions, mandatory ethics training, the Judicial Conference Committees on Codes of Conduct and Financial Disclosure, and the SCOTUS Office of Legal Counsel. [58] The commentary mentions that some lower courts in the United States utilize recusal software to remove judges who have a bias toward a case but refrains from applying that method to the SCOTUS in the near future. [59] Instead, the SCOTUS Office of Legal Counsel is given the majority of discretion for the future of Justice ethics codes.
III. Enforcement Mechanisms
The vague and subjective language of the code also reflects a lack of enforcement mechanisms. In the Code’s commentary that explains the rationale behind specifying these guidelines, the document reads, “In many cases, however, these Canons are broadly worded general principles informing conduct, rather than specific rules requiring no exercise of judgment or discretion.” [60] This statement intends to illustrate the complexity of regulating SCOTUS and the inherent responsibility of each Justice to actively judge misconduct. However, if a Justice chooses to interpret one of the Canons in a different light that it may have been intended to communicate, no higher court can dispute that judgment and effectively correct it. [61] In the case of this Code, subjective language can have dramatic implications on adherence. In regards to recusal, the Justice is responsible for evaluating their biases and leaves the bench when their personal or financial interests are at hand. [62] Self-policing relies on Justices to purposefully disengage when they have incentives to influence their personal gain, without any outside forces requiring them to do so. They would also need to personally recuse themselves from the bench knowing that they cannot be replaced, differing from lower court systems where the position of a recused judge can temporarily be replaced with an appellate or retired judge for the hearing of a case. [63] With cases that are highly contested and politicized, the shrinking of the bench could have a serious impact on the verdict of a case, requiring five Justices out of eight or fewer, rather than five Justices out of nine to win a case. [64] Although the commentary of the Code does provide a possible solution by describing recusal software used by some lower courts, there is little if any intention to reproduce the method for the SCOTUS. [65]
In regards to bias, the Code does address the scope of conflict of interest by explaining three degrees of relation in which Justices should exercise caution. [66] Three degrees includes the actions of whole blood, half blood, and step-relatives. [67] However, there is little specification surrounding what these relatives within three degrees must have or do, such as membership or engagement in certain activities or groups, in order to constitute significant bias. [68] Additionally, Justices are under no formal obligation to be aware of actions within the third degree. [69] For example, concerns were raised over Justice Clarence Thomas' wife's involvement in denying 2020 election results. [70] When hearing a case surrounding this topic, the level of awareness and association that Justice Thomas had with his wife’s political activism was subject to scrutiny by government officials and the public at large. [71] Under the language of the Code, Justices may have the opportunity to feign a lack of awareness of such activities and affiliations in order to prevent recusal based on bias within third degree relations.
While the Code emerged out of pressure on SCOTUS after reports of Justice misconduct, the Code also does little to address past violations. Allowing previous misconduct, such as the acceptance of gifts, luxury vacations, and a failure to self-recuse, sets a flexible precedent for future adherence to the ethics code while failing to recover public confidence. Without significant consequences, the Code then serves as a theoretical framework of recommendations rather than a set of regulations that must be followed.
IV. Critique, Response, and Steps Forward
Despite its limitations in enforcement mechanisms and specification, the Code provides the first step toward more effective judicial regulation. Its issuance represents the first time a written statement has directly outlined codes of conduct for the SCOTUS in its two hundred and thirty-five years of existence, challenging the notion that constitutional exceptionalism allows every court except SCOTUS to be bound by ethics codes. [72] The Code’s statement acknowledges this step by reading, “The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.” [73] Simply having an ethics code removes a possible loophole in behavioral standards, while representing efforts to make the SCOTUS a more transparent, accountable, and trustworthy institution. According to a Gallup survey conducted in September 2023, two months before the Code was issued, only forty-one percent of Americans approved of SCOTUS performance, and only forty-nine percent of Americans had confidence and trust in the SCOTUS. [74] Both of these statistics are near historic lows of forty percent and forty-seven percent, respectively. [75] For SCOTUS to be a respected judicial decision-making institution, the American public has to believe in the ability of Justices to interpret the Constitution and legal precedents in a manner that is impartial and independent. The Code, therefore, may serve to repair lost trust that occurred in the wake of reports on Justice misconduct. [76]
Building on the foundation set by the Code, future steps to make ethical guidelines more effective could include making the Code legally binding and introducing legislation that clarifies and enforces these rules. [77 ]While the current nine Justices have signed the Code, the same process would have to be consistently repeated during future appointments to ensure that the Code persists in the long run. [78] Additionally, creating a complaints procedure in which allegations of misconduct can be reviewed and decided on would allow for the identification of Code violations beyond the self-policing expected in the current document. [79] Consequences for violating the code would have to be severe enough to prevent Justices from glossing over possible issues. If the Code can serve this foundational purpose, it has the potential to initiate a future of further accountability to create a more impartial and independent SCOTUS.
Endnotes
[1] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 9, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[2] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 1-14, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[3] Ibid.
[4] VanSickle, Abbie, and Adam Liptak. “Supreme Court Adopts Ethics Code After Reports of Undisclosed Gifts and Travel.” The New York Times. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/us/politics/supreme-court-ethics-code.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Kaplan, Joshua, Justin Elliott, Brett Murphy, and Alex Mierjeski. “The Supreme Court Has Adopted a Conduct Code, but Who Will Enforce It?.” ProPublica. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-adopts-ethics-code-scotus-thomas-alito-crow.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 10, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[12] Ahearn, Jennifer. “What Gifts Must Supreme Court Justices Disclose?.” Brennan Center for Justice. Last modified August 11, 2023. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose.
[13] Ibid.
[14] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 10, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ahearn, Jennifer. “What Gifts Must Supreme Court Justices Disclose?.” Brennan Center for Justice. Last modified August 11, 2023. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Kaplan, Joshua, Justin Elliott, Brett Murphy, and Alex Mierjeski. “The Supreme Court Has Adopted a Conduct Code, but Who Will Enforce It?.” ProPublica. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-adopts-ethics-code-scotus-thomas-alito-crow.
[24] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 1, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[25] Ibid.
[26] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 1-14, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[27] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 1, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[28] “Overview - Rule of Law.” United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law.
[29] Ibid.
[30] “Judicial Independence.” Judicial Learning Center. Last modified 2019. https://judiciallearningcenter.org/judicial-independence/.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Bam, Dmitry. “Understanding Caperton: Judicial Disqualification Under the Due Process Clause.” University of Maine School of Law (2019): 67-68. https://judiciallearningcenter.org/judicial-independence/.
[35] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 1-4, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 1-14, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
[42] Kanu, Hassan. “Justice Thomas' rare recusal was an attempt at damage control and little else.” Reuters. Last modified October 24, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/column-justice-thomas-rare-recusal-was-an-attempt-damage-control-little-else-2023-10-24/.
[43] Gerstein, Josh. “6 things to know about the Supreme Court’s new ethics code.” Politico. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/13/supreme-court-ethics-code-what-to-know-00126962.
[44] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 10-14, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
[45] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 4-8, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
[46] Ibid.
[47] Zurcher, Anthony. “US Supreme Court takes on ethics row with first-ever code of conduct.” BBC. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67408898.
[48] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 10-14, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ahearn, Jennifer. “What Gifts Must Supreme Court Justices Disclose?.” Brennan Center for Justice. Last modified August 11, 2023. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose.
[52] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 10-14, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[53] Ibid.
[54] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 8, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[55] “Overview - Rule of Law.” United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law.
[56] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 10-14, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Bravin, Jess. “Supreme Court Issues Code of Conduct.” The Wall Street Journal. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-code-of-conduct-scandals-5d8be723.
[62] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 10-14, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[63] Bravin, Jess. “Supreme Court Issues Code of Conduct.” The Wall Street Journal. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-code-of-conduct-scandals-5d8be723.
[64] Gerstein, Josh. “6 things to know about the Supreme Court’s new ethics code.” Politico. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/13/supreme-court-ethics-code-what-to-know-00126962.
[65] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 10-14, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Ibid.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Bravin, Jess. “Supreme Court Issues Code of Conduct.” The Wall Street Journal. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-code-of-conduct-scandals-5d8be723.
[70] Kaplan, Joshua, Justin Elliott, Brett Murphy, and Alex Mierjeski. “The Supreme Court Has Adopted a Conduct Code, but Who Will Enforce It?.” ProPublica. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-adopts-ethics-code-scotus-thomas-alito-crow.
[71] Ibid.
[72] VanSickle, Abbie, and Adam Liptak. “Supreme Court Adopts Ethics Code After Reports of Undisclosed Gifts and Travel.” The New York Times. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/us/politics/supreme-court-ethics-code.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article.
[73] “Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 1, Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
[74] Elliott, Justin, Joshua Kaplan, and Alex Mierjeski. “Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court.” ProPublica. Last modified June 20, 2023. https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court.
[75] Ibid.
[76] VanSickle, Abbie, and Adam Liptak. “Supreme Court Adopts Ethics Code After Reports of Undisclosed Gifts and Travel.” The New York Times. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/us/politics/supreme-court-ethics-code.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article.
[77] Ahearn, Jennifer. “What Gifts Must Supreme Court Justices Disclose?.” Brennan Center for Justice. Last modified August 11, 2023. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose.
[78] Gerstein, Josh. “6 things to know about the Supreme Court’s new ethics code.” Politico. Last modified November 13, 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/13/supreme-court-ethics-code-what-to-know-00126962.
[79] Ahearn, Jennifer. “What Gifts Must Supreme Court Justices Disclose?.” Brennan Center for Justice. Last modified August 11, 2023. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose.