Justice Sotomayor got millions from publishing company while not recusing from cases: Report

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor reportedly accepted nearly $2 million from Penguin Random House in a book deal, and then went on to sit in judgment of a copyright case involving that same company the following year.

According to a report in the Daily Wire, she received $1.9 million from the publishing house in 2012. In 2013, she helped decide whether the court should take up a legal dispute between the company and a classmate of Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, who said his book proposal was stolen and used to make the movie “The Social Network.”

The conservative outlet reported that this was not the only time Justice Sotomayor participated in the justices’ conference about which appeals to grant. It also noted a case involving a woman who claimed the publishing house copied her children’s book.

The justices did not take up either case.

It is not known how Justice Sotomayor voted on whether to take up either case, though she did not publicly recuse herself. When the court declines to hear an appeal, it usually doesn’t publicly say which, if any, among the justices might have wanted to do so.

The Daily Wire estimated that Justice Sotomayor has received more than $3.5 million from Penguin Random House or its subsidiaries over the years.

Justice Sotomayor, appointed to the court in 2009 by former President Obama, has written a number of children’s books.

The revelations about her payments from the publishing house while not recusing herself from cases involving the company come as a series of articles have surfaced in recent weeks against conservative justices, questioning their ethics and conduct while on the bench.

ProPublica reported this week that GOP mega donor Harlan Crow paid private school tuition at two private schools for Justice Clarence Thomas’ great nephew, whom the jurist had taken in to raise at the age of six.

ProPublica also reported that Justice Thomas did not disclose that he had taken multiple luxury vacations with Mr. Crow or that Mr. Crow had purchased the home of Justice Thomas’ mother 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.

Politico also published a story in recent weeks about Justice Neil M. Gorsuch not disclosing the buyer of a property he sold in Colorado after becoming a sitting judge. The buyer was head of a law firm with cases before the court.
Justice Thomas, though, has been the focus on the reporting questioning the high court’s ethics rules — or lack thereof.

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

There’s no official code of conduct or ethics for the Supreme Court but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recently detailed the high court’s standards in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying the court since 1991 has generally followed the Judicial Conferences’ Code of Ethics, which is binding on lower courts but not the Supreme Court.

“The Justices, like other federal judges, consult a wide variety of authorities to address specific ethical issues. They may turn to judicial opinions, treatises, scholarly articles, disciplinary decisions, and the historical practice of the Court and the federal judiciary. They may also seek advice from the Court’s Legal Office and from their colleagues,” he wrote.

Senate Democrats have said they need to pass legislation to ensure there’s transparency to the public.