Democrats to subpoena conservatives linked to Supreme Court justices

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats moved forward Thursday with plans to subpoena influential conservatives linked to Supreme Court justices in their quest to pass legislation imposing a code of ethics on the high court.

The vote is to occur likely on Nov. 9. It was originally set to take place Thursday, but the minority on the committee requested to hold the vote over a week, which is customary.

The Democrats, which hold a one-member majority on the committee, are poised to subpoena GOP mega-donor Harlan Crow, who’s a friend of Justice Clarence Thomas; Leonard Leo, who helped former President Donald Trump with his judicial nominations; and Robin Arkley II, who allegedly gifted trips to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“I am not requesting this authorization lightly,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Durbin, Illinois Democrat.

He said the committee has sought the trio’s cooperation, but the response has been “insufficient,” with the three claiming the committee doesn’t have oversight powers.

“This committee cannot allow … the baseless arguments to thwart our constitutional duty,” the senator said.

Mr. Durbin said the committee needs information from the influential men to understand how people gain private access to Supreme Court justices.

Republicans on the committee, meanwhile, said Democrats are trying to attack the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

The top Republican on the committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said the “world is on fire” but Democrats want to focus on the Supreme Court since they disagree with recent decisions.

“You’re spending more time trying to fix the Supreme Court than you are the border. Your policies across the board are not working,” he said.

The committee is composed of 11 Democrats to 10 Republicans, suggesting the subpoenas will likely be authorized in a close vote.

The Democrats on the panel want the men to testify in order for lawmakers to push legislation aimed at imposing a code of ethics on the nation’s highest court.

Senate Democrats have been going back and forth with Mr. Crow for months about his financial relationship with Justice Thomas.

In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Mr. Crow to provide detailed information about his friendship with Justice Thomas and about gifts or expenses he made on his behalf.

Mr. Crow, through his attorneys, declined to answer some of the inquiries, saying in his letter they suggested a separation of powers conflict.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee claim Mr. Leo and Mr. Arkley also refused to provide the committee with information about their relationship with the justices.

The requests have come after a series of news articles about Justice Thomas and his friendship with Mr. Crow, a billionaire real estate developer.

ProPublica reported that Mr. Crow 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 age 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 the ethics standards required of a federal judge.

Scrutiny of the justices has continued in recent months.

ProPublica reported in April that Justice Thomas did not disclose that he took multiple luxury vacations with Mr. Crow or that Mr. Crow 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 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.

Mr. Crow’s office said in a statement, “It’s disappointing that one party on the committee would choose to pursue an unnecessary, partisan and politically motivated subpoena instead of simply reciprocating Mr. Crow’s good faith efforts at a reasonable compromise that respects both sides. We offered extensive information responsive to the committee’s requests despite the serious constitutional and privacy concerns presented to the committee, which were ignored and remain unaddressed. Notably, the committee has already passed the legislation for which it says the information it has requested is supposedly necessary. It’s clear this is nothing more than a stunt aimed at undermining a sitting Supreme Court justice for ideological and political purposes. Mr. Crow, a private citizen, won’t be bullied by threats from politicians. However, as previously conveyed to the committee, we remain committed to respectful cooperation and a fair resolution.”

Mr. Leo said the Democrats are seeking to destroy the Supreme Court. In a letter earlier this month to the committee, he noted the requests appear to be political retaliation in violation of the Constitution.

“I will not bow to the vile and disgusting liberal McCarthyism that seeks to destroy the Supreme Court simply because it follows the Constitution rather than their political agenda,” he wrote.

Other articles involving Justice Alito and ethics concerns have also surfaced involving luxury travel hosted by billionaires.

Justice Alito has pushed back, denying any wrongdoing.

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

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has said the high court has generally followed the Judicial Conference’s Code of Ethics binding on lower courts — but not the Supreme Court — since 1991.

In July, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee advanced a bill that would require the high court to impose a code of ethics on itself.

But that legislation has not revived a full vote on the Senate floor where it would likely not meet the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster in the 51-49 chamber.