Conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo rejected a subpoena by Senate Democrats demanding information on his relationship with some Supreme Court justices, saying he won’t comply with the “unlawful and politically motivated” order.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in November to subpoena Mr. Leo over his connections to conservative Supreme Court justices, with a focus on Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
“Today, I received an unlawful and politically motivated subpoena from U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin. I am not capitulating to his lawless support of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and the left’s dark money effort to silence and cancel political opposition,” Mr. Leo said.
Mr. Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, has railed against Mr. Leo’s conservative activism and support of judicial advocacy groups.
Mr. Leo’s lawyer, David Rivkin, also sent a letter to Mr. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, to reiterate their position that the subpoena seeks unlawful personal information and runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Senate Democrats likely don’t have the 60 votes needed to enforce the subpoena.
Senate Democrats want to establish a code of ethics for the Supreme Court following reports of Justice Thomas not disclosing lavish vacations and gifts paid for by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. Resisting oversight by the legislative branch, the court released its first code of conduct earlier in November.
Mr. Crow, who answered some of the committee’s questions voluntarily, did not receive a subpoena.
Mr. Durbin rejected the court‘s self-imposed code, saying it lacked an enforcement mechanism.
He previously defended the subpoenas as “key pieces” to establish legislation for a high court ethics code.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has said that Democrats can’t pack the conservative-leaning Supreme Court with more justices, so they’re attempting to attack the bench in other ways.
Republicans also said the subpoena was unlawful because Democrats broke committee rules by refusing to allow Republicans to speak at the hearing.
Democrats’ focus on Mr. Crow and Mr. Leo stems from news reports last year detailing Justice Thomas’ and other justices’ alleged conflicts of interest.
In May, the committee’s Democrats asked Mr. Crow to provide detailed information about his friendship with Justice Thomas. Mr. Crow declined to answer some of the inquiries, with his lawyer arguing it overstepped the separation of powers.
The Democrats said Mr. Leo refused to provide them with any information.
Some of the alleged conflicts of interest included:
• ProPublica reported that Mr. Crow paid $150,000 for private school tuition for Justice Thomas‘ great-nephew, whom the justice took in to raise at the age of 6.
• Justice Thomas did not disclose that he took luxury vacations with Mr. Crow and that Mr. Crow purchased the home of Justice Thomas‘ mother even though she continued to live there.
• The Washington Post revealed what appeared to be a typographical error on the justice’s financial disclosure related to family real estate income listed as Ginger Ltd. Partnership instead of Ginger Holdings LLC.
• The New York Times detailed how Justice Thomas and other Republican appointees collected salaries to teach courses at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law.
Justice Thomas has said he consulted with colleagues about disclosure requirements and didn’t skirt any rules.
At the time, 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.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.