Senate Judiciary Committee votes to subpoena conservative allies of Supreme Court justices

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to subpoena allies of conservative Supreme Court justices in a contentious meeting where the Democratic majority at one point did not allow Republican senators to speak.

Senate Democrats have pushed to establish a code of ethics for the Supreme Court following reports of Justice Clarence Thomas not disclosing lavish vacations and gifts paid for by GOP megadonor Harlan Crow. The court, resisting oversight by the legislative branch, released its first code of conduct earlier in November.

On Thursday, all 11 committee Democrats voted in favor of the subpoenas for Mr. Crow and Leonard Leo, a conservative judicial activist, after the Republicans, except Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, had vacated the room.

Sen. Richard Durbin, Illinois Democrat and committee chairman, said the subpoenas are necessary for lawmakers to examine how to implement a code of ethics on the high court, dismissing the court’s self-imposed code as ineffective.

“There is no enforcement mechanism … to hold justices accountable for violating the code,” Mr. Durbin said of the court’s historic move, adding that the subpoenas are “key pieces” to establish a check on the high court via legislation.

Republicans said the subpoenas are part of an effort to delegitimize the court.

Mr. Graham, the committee’s ranking member, said Democrats can’t pack the conservative-leaning Supreme Court with more justices, so they’re attempting to attack the bench in other ways. He added that it will take 60 votes to enforce a subpoena and that Democrats don’t have that many votes in the 51-49 divided chamber.

“This is about a long going effort to destroy this court,” Mr. Graham said. “You are trying to restructure the court. This is just another way to do it.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Leo said he won’t comply.

“Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have been destroying the Supreme Court; now they are destroying the Senate. I will not cooperate with this unlawful campaign of political retribution,” he said.

Mr. Crow’s office issued a statement saying that the committee’s subpoena cannot be enforced, but he “remains willing to engage with the Committee in good faith, just as he has consistently done throughout this process.”

“Mr. Crow offered extensive information responsive to the Committee’s requests despite his strong objections to its necessity and legality. So far, Committee Democrats have been dismissive of Mr. Crow’s good faith offer and unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue,” the statement reads.

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

In May, Judiciary Committee Democrats asked Mr. Crow to provide detailed information about his friendship with Justice Thomas and detail certain gifts or expenses he’s made on his behalf. Mr. Crow, through his attorneys, declined to answer some of the inquiries, saying in a letter that it suggested a separation of powers conflict.

Committee Democrats, however, say Mr. Leo refused to provide them with information about his relationship with the justices.

Focus on Thomas

Senate Democrats’ requests followed a series of 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 the age of 6. The tuition total could have totaled more than $150,000, according to ProPublica. Justice Thomas did not note the payments in his financial disclosure forms, and the news outlet suggested that runs afoul of the ethics standards required of federal judges.

Scrutiny of the justices has continued. ProPublica reported in April that Justice Thomas did not disclose that he took multiple luxury vacations with Mr. Crow and 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.

Other articles about Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. enjoying luxury travel hosted by billionaires also have surfaced. Justice Alito has pushed back, denying any wrongdoing.

Code of conduct

The high court did not 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 John G. Roberts Jr. had 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.

Earlier in November, Justice Roberts — joined by the court’s other justices — released a code of conduct the court plans to implement.

In a 15-page press release, the nine justices said they follow certain requirements for recusal — such as not sitting on a case in which a relative or spouse is involved. They said they have always followed rules similar to other federal courts, but the justices put it on record to avoid criticism.

“The absence of a code … 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,” the statement said. “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”

Under the code, justices will recuse themselves if they have a financial interest in the outcome of a case or if they have had any involvement in the litigation before joining the bench. They also should avoid political activity and follow the Judicial Conference’s regulations on gifts and financial disclosure.

The justices may provide consultation in public hearings and speak, write and teach on matters related to the law. They may be reimbursed and given just compensation, per the code.

Democrats say the code falls short since the justices are policing themselves.

Last year, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee advanced a bill that would require the high court to impose a code of ethics on itself. That legislation has not revived a full vote on the Senate floor, where it would not likely meet the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster in the 51-49 chamber.