SCOTUS Financial Disclosures (Except for Alito and Thomas)

There are various disclosure laws in place to help people see the possibility of ethical conflicts.  It should not be too controversial that the Supreme Court should fit this wider rule.  Rules were strengthened somewhat recently in law that received bipartisan support:

Revised ethics rules adopted in March require the justices — and all federal judges — to provide a fuller public accounting of the free trips and other gifts they accept. The changes make clear, for instance, that judges must report travel by private jet. The revised rules were also designed to clarify which gifts can be counted as “personal hospitality” from a close friend and exempt from disclosure.

Justices released financial disclosure statements (SCOTUSBlog and Fix the Court are two useful places for information and links), Alito and Thomas took advantage of a 90-day.  Thomas has various complicated issues that have received a lot of attention and should warrant much more pressure to resign.  As FTC notes:

Though it’s unclear if Justice Alito still owns shares in a whopping 28 companies as he did in 2021, the justice did recuse from 20 petitions in 2022 due to his stock ownership. None of the other seven justices own individual stocks.

So, he has more issues.  Various accounts (such as NPR and Washington Post) add some details.  We now learn Kagan receives money from a parking space.  Roberts clarified details involving his wife's involvement in a legal recruitment firm.  Sotomayor's books, a few justices have teaching gigs (Gorsuch in Italy), and Jackson received some expensive gifts:

The only justice to report a gift was Justice Jackson, who received three above the $415 reporting threshold: a John Steele painting (valued at $580), flowers from Oprah ($1,200) and a dress and jacket for her Vogue photoshoot ($6,580). It’s unknown how many gifts valued under $415 the justices received this year, but in years past they’ve gotten silver julep cups, personalized baseball bats and an engraving they didn’t have to report, thanks to the high threshold in the disclosure law (next year, it goes up to $480).

Didn't find what the painting portrayed. Sort of annoying. You would think it was readily available information, especially to the degree it would pop up in one of around five summaries or by a Google search.  Anyway, the disclosures help provide some clarity (including speeches paid in accommodations and travel expenses), but Fix the Court does yeoman effort to suggest various things are still left unsaid.  

I'm not on board really with Above the Law (see last link) having concerns about justices having teaching gigs. Fine, they are backhanded donations to the institutions. Not a big concern for me, especially if Barrett goes back to her own alma mater, Notre Dame.  Be nice if they instead teach in some low-profile place, but it's at best a venial sin.  At that. 

Fix the Court conveniently provides the disclosure statements for each justice.  As with opinion announcements, we really shouldn't have to rely on such summaries.  One article sends you to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts website, which requires further research.  It isn't clear. 

Why can't the Supreme Court just have a press release and provide easy-access links?  I speak rhetorically.  But, there are various open government, public-friendly ways to advance good public relations here.  Half-measures are not going to do the job.  This all shows the need for pushing and true checks and balances.  Separation of powers won't be violated.