Justice Alito bashes ProPublica in op-ed, says it misleads readers

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. beat ProPublica to the punch Tuesday, publishing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal rebutting a then-unpublished article accusing him of ethics violations.

The justice, an appointee of President George W. Bush, accused the outlet of misleading readers in an article about his ties to Paul Singer, a billionaire hedge-fund manager.

“ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid,” Justice Alito wrote.

The justice said in the op-ed that he was not required to recuse from legal battles involving any of Mr. Singer’s entities because he did not know of the connection — and had only met Mr. Singer a few times anyway.

His op-ed called that Mr. Singer’s purported ties to cases before the court “all appear to be either limited liability corporations or limited liability partnerships,” which he called a flimsy rationale for a claim of bias and a ridiculous standard for justices to meet.

“It would be utterly impossible for my staff or any other Supreme Court employees to search filings with the SEC or other government bodies to find the names of all individuals with a financial interest in every such entity named as a party in the thousands of cases that are brought to us each year,” he said.

He noted he also did not reveal details of a fishing trip to Alaska more than a decade ago, to which he flew in Mr. Singer’s private plane. Justice Alito said he was offered what he believed would have been an otherwise vacant seat.

He noted financial reporting requirements at the time were not believed to require the disclosure of social events as “reportable gifts.”

“The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so, I followed what I understood to be standard practice. For these reasons, I did not include on my Financial Disclosure Report for 2008 either the accommodations provided by the owner of the King Salmon Lodge, who, to my knowledge, has never been involved in any matter before the Court, or the seat on the flight to Alaska,” Justice Alito wrote.

An editor’s note says two reporters from ProPublica had reached out to Justice Alito with questions about the accusations he had skirted ethics guidelines.

Justice Alito, by publishing his responses in the Wall Street Journal, seems to have beaten ProPublica to publishing its story about him.
A spokesperson for ProPublica declined to respond to the op-ed.

“We don’t comment on unpublished stories,” the person told The Washington Times.

ProPublica also has targeted Justice Clarence Thomas with accusations about reporting gifts and recusing himself from cases.

It reported that Harlan Crow, a GOP megadonor, paid private school tuition at Hidden Lake Academy and Randolph-Macon Academy for Justice Thomas’ great-nephew, whom the justice took in to raise at the age of 6.

The tuition total could have cost more than $150,000, according to ProPublica. Justice Thomas did not disclose the payments in his financial disclosure forms, and the news outlet suggested that runs afoul of ethical standards required of a federal judge.

ProPublica also reported in April that Justice Thomas did not disclose that he had taken multiple luxury vacations with Mr. Crow or that Mr. Crow had purchased his mother’s home even though she continued to reside there.

The Washington Post followed with an April 16 article examining what appeared to be a typo on the justice’s financial disclosure related to family real estate holdings in which he reported rental income to Ginger Ltd. Partnership instead of Ginger Holdings LLC.

The New York Times followed with a piece critical of Justice Thomas and other Republican appointees collecting generous salaries to teach courses at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law.

Justice Thomas has defended his friendship with Mr. Crow, and said he consulted with colleagues about disclosure requirements and didn’t skirt any rules.

In an interview published recently by the Atlantic, Mr. Crow denied talking to Justice Thomas about the high court or matters pending before it. He also said the purchase of his mother’s home was a fair-market transaction.

“I don’t see the foot fault,” he said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have held at least two hearings on ethics concerns for the justices, saying they would craft legislation to impose on the justices. They invited Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to testify, but he declined.

The high court currently doesn’t have a mandatory code of ethics, even though lower court judges are expected to avoid impropriety or do business with anyone who may come before the bench.

Chief Justice Roberts has said the high court has generally followed the Judicial Conferences’ Code of Ethics that are binding on lower courts — but not the Supreme Court — since 1991.

He said all justices must file disclosures that are reviewed by the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure and follow what lower courts do with recusals. But he noted that the system is flexible, given the composition of the high court.

He also said the justices’ security has faced increased threats. He said they sometimes do not disclose justices’ travel arrangements for security reasons.

Senate Republicans have dismissed the accusations of ethics concerns and said it’s a political attempt by Democrats to delegitimize the Supreme Court.

ProPublica ended up publishing its story just hours after Justice Alito’s op-ed went public.

Leonard Leo, who served as head of the Federalist Society and is a GOP donor, reportedly organized the fishing trip.

He defended Justice Alito, saying he never knew Mr. Singer had cases before the high court. 

“Justice Alito did not know Paul Singer had interests in the cases cited by ProPublica because Singer’s name does not appear anywhere in court records or documents. You cannot possibly provide special treatment or favor to someone if you don’t know they are involved in a case,” Mr. Leo said.