Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse filed a formal complaint against Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. this week, suggesting he ran afoul of judicial ethics by criticizing Mr. Whitehouse’s legislation, which would impose a code of ethics on the high court.
“I’ve lodged a formal ethics complaint against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. If the court claims it can police its own members, now is the time to prove it,” the Rhode Island Democrat posted on X Tuesday.
His complaint, dated Monday, was filed to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and raised concerns over reports that Justice Alito went on a trip with a billionaire in the past and failed to disclose the hospitality in his financial filings.
Mr. Whitehouse claims Justice Alito ran afoul of judicial ethics by commenting on the legislation, which could come before the court. The senator also suggests the nondisclosed travel was an “improper use of judicial office for personal benefit.”
Senate Democrats have asked Chief Justice Roberts to ensure Justice Alito is recused from any legal battle over their legislation, should it become law and be challenged in the courts.
“In the worst case facts may reveal, Justice Alito was involved in an organized campaign to block congressional action with regard to a matter in which he has a personal stake. Whether Justice Alito was unwittingly used to provide fodder for such interference, or intentionally participated, is a question whose answer requires additional facts,” wrote Mr. Whitehouse in his complaint.
“I request that you as chief justice, or through the Judicial Conference, take whatever steps are necessary to investigate this affair and provide the public with prompt and trustworthy answers,” the senator added.
A spokesperson from the high court did not return a request for comment.
Justice Alito beat ProPublica to the punch in June, publishing an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal rebutting a then-unpublished article accusing him of ethics violations.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 [myself] 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 Disclosure Report. Neither charge is valid,” Justice Alito wrote.
The justice said in the op-ed that he was not required to be recused from legal battles involving any of Mr. Singer‘s entities because he did not know of the connection — and had met Mr. Singer only a few times anyway.
The justice 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 position.
He noted financial reporting requirements at the time were not believed to require the disclosure of social events as “reportable gifts.”
The justice also in an article published by The Journal said it’s likely unconstitutional for Congress to police the high court in terms of ethics as Democratic lawmakers have attacked Justice Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas over alleged ethics concerns, also detailed in reporting over the prior months by ProPublica.
ProPublica also has targeted Justice 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 age 6.
The tuition total could have cost more than $150,000, according to ProPublica. Justice Thomas previously 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 took multiple luxury vacations with Mr. Crow or that Mr. Crow bought his mother’s home even though she continued to reside there.
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 hearings over the summer on ethics concerns for the justices, saying they would pass legislation to impose on the justices. They invited Chief Justice Roberts to testify, but he declined.
The high court 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.
In a party-line vote in July, Senate Democrats pushed legislation backed by Mr. Whitehouse through the Judiciary Committee that would require the court to develop a code of ethics and a system to police the justices’ adherence. The justices would be prodded to better explain their decisions on whether to recuse themselves from hearing certain cases.
It’s unclear if Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, has scheduled a vote on the legislation.
Given the close division of power in the Senate and the Republicans’ control of the House, Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, said the Democrats’ bill is “as dead as fried chicken.”
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.