SCOTUS Watch: Ethics Check-In

I don't think it is wrong to flag the special perks that justices obtain. I basically mean the "retail" sort beyond the "billionaire pals" of Alito and Thomas.  For instance, multiple justices have taken part in academic programs that are in effect working vacations:

“Your colleagues who were here most recently were Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg, (Anthony) Kennedy, and (Stephen) Breyer, and I believe they all would recommend the experience highly,” the law school’s then-Dean Aviam Soifer wrote in a 2010 email trying to draw Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the school in Honolulu. “We will, of course, cover first-class airfare, excellent hotel accommodations, and all other travel expenses.”

There is a 30K cap on outside income though I don't know how all those perks translate.  And, there are problems with disclosure: "Like other private schools that have hosted the justices abroad, Notre Dame is not subject to public records laws, and school officials declined to comment."

I voiced my feelings of "eh" about these things. Some flag them as dubious as means for educational institutions to get cred and influence:

“This is a level of luxury that most Americans will never see. And the fact that the justices are receiving it by virtue of their positions seems to be outside ethical bounds,” said Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, a nonpartisan watchdog group dedicated to following the Supreme Court.

Law professors can "luxury" and so on most of us will never see.  The Strict Scrutiny Podcast crew went to Hawaii when one of them had a conference of some sort there.  Professor Melissa Murray as part of her role apparently talked about a trip to Ghana. I doubt this was all out of pocket. Your average professor often doesn't get to do these things. A range of businesses provide opportunities to have such perks.  

Yes, a federal judge will get these perks.  Up to a point, engaging with the public, students, and foreign personnel (members of foreign courts and governments) has a useful function.  My main concern would be two-fold. First, this should have full disclosure and transparency.  Second, it shows they aren't special snowflakes.  Overall, normal rules should apply to them.

I think the 30K limit (a fraction of their yearly pay) is reasonable.  Another article specifically flagged Sotomayor's appearances, which help to advance her book sales.  Fix the Court in the past flagged possible cases where she should have recused herself from considering a case that her publisher was involved in.  Shows the value of clear recusal rules.

The article suggests more than that.  Her staff "prodded" people to obtain her books.  That implies some sort of wrongdoing but it is unclear what exactly.  She goes to a public appearance and her staff encourages the venue to have enough books to go around.  Okay?  Not really impressed though I'm supposed to be.  

The documents obtained by AP show that the justices’ conduct spans their conservative-liberal split. Besides book sales, appearances by the justices were used in hopes of raising money at schools, which often invited major contributors to the events. Justices also lent the allure of their high office to partisan activity.

I'm unsure how Sotomayor bent the rules specifically but if her government-paid staff -- that has to follow ethics rules she does not -- crossed some line, okay.  But, justices are involved in a range of things, and their clerks and staff help to set it up.  

The "both sides do it" here regarding "Sotomayor" articles is somewhat unclear.  At best, it shows the value of basic rules, not something akin to Alito or Thomas (note there are other conservative justices).  We also have this:

“I have never believed that Supreme Court justices should write books to supplement their judicial incomes,” said [retired Judge] Luttig, who was considered for the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush. “The potential for promotion of the individual justices over the Court at the reputational expense of the Court as an institution, as well as the appearance of such, is unavoidable.”

Judge Luttig has received some attention as a former conservative federal judge who has opposed Trump and supported an ethics law for the Supreme Court.  The value of justice writing books -- and many have over the years -- is mixed.  There are some useful writings.  And, I don't think Sotomayor and others are writing books to "supplement their judicial incomes" alone anyway.  I won't be naive to think that isn't a helpful part of things.  

What reputational harm have the books of Breyer, Scalia, Sotomayor, Thomas, or Gorsuch (from what I can tell basically a bunch of essays) had?  I think the First Amendment value of them expressing themselves compensates.  Still, there is a profit motive, and the article helpfully shows there are interest groups involved in the process

My net judgment is that these people are not special snowflakes. They should have to follow basic ethical guidelines and full transparency.  We should have had a chance to hear them announce major opinions. There is a page to provide transcripts of speeches.  It is never used. And so on.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is working on an ethics bill:

The bill would give the court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct, allowing the public to submit ethics complaints that a randomly selected panel of lower court judges would review. It would establish new rules for disclosure of gifts and travel. And it would impose recusal rules pertaining to gifts, income and other potential conflicts.

This seems to be the text.  The panel of lower judges having the power to hear complaints and to release reports of their work to me is of special importance.  Judicial ethics cannot simply be a self-regulation thing.  The public release of a report is a means to bring to light problems, including sending a signal to Congress.  There is also this:

present to the Supreme Court of the United States any findings and recommendations for necessary and appropriate action by the Supreme Court, including dismissal of the complaint, disciplinary actions, or changes to Supreme Court rules or procedures

I don't really know what this entails.  Also, the additional rules seem okay but how will the rules be applied? Will the Supreme Court formulate guidelines?  Will individual justices continue to decide for themselves?  There should be an advisory body or ombudsman type role to help clarify things here.  Basically, I think the bill needs some work.

Realistically, it is unlikely that nine Republicans will go along with it, even putting aside the House of Representatives.  So, this is a sort of signal that the Senate Democrats are doing something and that the Senate Republicans are not.  Either way, it also provides an opportunity to address what is needed.  So, hopefully, further debate on that will arise. 

A vote is scheduled next week.  No other action has occurred at SCOTUS except further working on fitting opinions into bound volumes.  You can see the ongoing process here with the full citations continuing to show up (e.g., "598 U.S. 432").