Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter Thursday to Chief Justice John Roberts asking him to answer questions related to the Supreme Court’s ethics policies.
The letter, signed by all 11 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, comes on the heels of Roberts’ rejection of Durbin’s request that the chief justice appear, or designate another justice to appear, before the committee for a hearing about how the court polices conflicts of interest and other ethics issues.
The court is currently roiled by ethical controversies after ProPublica wrote about how Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from billionaire conservative donor Harlan Crow, along with the sale of property to Crow. In addition, despite an insistence by Crow and Thomas that Crow never had business before the court, reports show that the court did decide whether to hear a case brought against one of his companies while his financial interests were relevant to cases before the court.
Justice Neil Gorsuch also failed to list the purchaser of a sale of more than $1 million in property to the chief executive of a law firm that routinely has business before the court, according to a report by Politico.
In rejecting the committee’s request to appear or to send a justice to appear for a hearing, Roberts attached a “Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices to which all of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe.”
“The statement of principles raises more questions than it resolves, and we request that you respond to several key questions,” according to the response from Durbin and the Judiciary Committee Democrats.
The court does not have a binding code of conduct, as the lower federal courts do, and is opaque in handling ethics issues when they arise. Durbin’s letter probes into the court’s lack of transparency.
Where the court’s Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices states that “Justices, like other federal judges, consult a wide variety of authorities to address specific ethical issues,” Durbin asks, “What guidance do Justices receive on which authorities to consult, and how is this consultation process and any final decision on a particular matter documented?”
The Judicial Conference, the body overseeing the lower courts, reviews Supreme Court financial disclosures and may contact a justice to provide an opportunity for them to correct any discrepancies or oversights, according to the statement.
“What is the consequence, if any, for a sitting Justice who does not respond as appropriate to such a letter of inquiry?” Durbin’s letter asks.
The letter then asks whether there has “ever been any censure, reprimand, admonition, sanction, or other penalty imposed on a Justice for failure to abide by any of the principles and practices now contained in the Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices?”
“If so, what types of penalties have been, or may be, imposed? Is there a process by which the public may file, and the Supreme Court may receive, complaints that a Justice has failed to abide by these principles?” the letter continues.
Durbin and the Judiciary Democrats also requested Roberts inform them when the court’s nine justices subscribed to any previous ethics statement prior to the Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices sent in the chief justices’ letter. They also asked if the justices must unanimously agree to adopt any ethics statement or abide by an ethics policy.
The court’s recent ethical lapses are not limited to Thomas or Gorsuch’s failure to report gifts and sales of properties.
Thomas has repeatedly failed to file financial disclosures properly. For example, in 2011, it was reported that he failed to disclose the income his wife, Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, received from a host of conservative think tanks, political groups and educational entities over 13 years.
Also, Thomas did not recuse himself from a case related to disclosing some of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ emails and text messages to the House Jan. 6 committee. While not included in the batch of Meadows’ communications before the court, other communications revealed that Ginni Thomas frequently texted Meadows to share conspiracy theories and express her fervent hope that Meadows and Donald Trump would succeed in stealing the 2020 election from Joe Biden. Thomas was the lone vote on the court to deny further disclosures of Meadows’ emails.
Durbin gave Roberts a deadline of May 1 to respond to the questions posed by Judiciary Committee Democrats. The committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Supreme Court ethics on May 2.
Read Durbin’s letter to Roberts below: