The Judicial Conference has recently chosen not to refer Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Department of Justice for investigation regarding alleged ethical violations.
The Hill reported that the decision not to investigate comes after a request from Democrats in the Senate and public scrutiny from leftists over financial disclosures.
Judicial Conference Secretary Robert Conrad sent identical letters to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, explaining why the body decided against the referral. This correspondence occurred on Thursday, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over Supreme Court justices' ethics.
The investigation requests stemmed from a series of reports by ProPublica, which highlighted that Justice Thomas had accepted free trips that were not previously disclosed.
These allegations led to significant public and political backlash, urging for a comprehensive review of ethical adherence by members of the Supreme Court.
One main aspect raised in Conrad’s letter was the uncertainty surrounding the Conference's authority to enforce disciplinary actions against Supreme Court justices.
He highlighted the arguable lack of jurisdiction, stating that any attempt to oversee the Supreme Court could pose "serious constitutional questions."
This issue was further complicated by the fact that the Democrats had separately requested a special counsel to scrutinize Justice Thomas’s actions, making this part of the investigation somewhat redundant. According to the judicial body, this action negated the need for their referral to the DOJ, as matters were already being addressed through other channels.
This procedural outcome led to Justice Thomas amending his financial disclosure statements. “Justice Thomas has filed amended financial disclosure statements that address several issues identified in your letter,” Conrad informed the congressional leaders. He also indicated that Thomas agreed to adhere to the relevant federal guidance for judges going forward.
Justice Jackson was also at the center of ethics scrutiny. The Center for Renewing America had lodged a complaint against her, accusing her of not disclosing certain income and benefits related to her investiture ceremony. In response, Justice Jackson updated her disclosures to include the omitted income from her husband's consulting activities.
Spokesperson for the Center, Rachel Cauley emphasized the need for equitable scrutiny among justices, criticizing what she perceives as biased media coverage.
“It’s a sad commentary that the media does not care about liberal justices not following the ethics disclosure rules and a think tank needs to file a complaint to get it covered and effect change,” she commented.
The ongoing dispute reflects broader concerns over the adequacy of the Supreme Court's self-regulation regarding ethical standards. Critics, especially Whitehouse and Johnson, have argued that the judicial branch is failing to adequately supervise high court justices, citing the nearly two years it took the Judicial Conference to come to their decision.
In an attempt to address these criticisms, the Supreme Court recently released a statement outlining a new set of ethical principles. However, the lack of a binding enforcement mechanism in this statement continues to be a point of contention among lawmakers and ethics advocates alike.
Conrad’s letter also underscored the challenges in mandating oversight. “There is reason to doubt that the Conference has any such authority...Because the Judicial Conference does not superintend the Supreme Court of the United States,” he wrote, noting the constitutional implications of such an oversight.
Whitehouse expressed his dissatisfaction with the response from the judiciary, particularly pointing out the perceived evasions in dealing with the substantive issues surrounding Justice Thomas.
“The judiciary’s response contains some inconsistencies and strange claims, and ultimately doesn’t address the only real question the Judicial Conference should’ve been focused on for the nearly two years it spent on this matter: Is there reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas willfully broke the disclosure law?” said Whitehouse.
The decision by the Judicial Conference not to refer Justices Thomas and Jackson represents a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue about the role of ethics in the highest levels of the judiciary.