The Supreme Court is like the referee in a game of democracy. Its job is to ensure that everyone follows the rules of the game, which are based on the Constitution.

When a case comes to the Supreme Court, the justices examine how people or the government apply the law and decide if it aligns with the Constitution. For example, if a new law is made that seems unfair or goes against the Constitution, the Supreme Court steps in to either allow or stop that law.

However, some significant problems have surfaced recently. These problems could make it harder for the Court to do its job correctly, and that’s a big deal because it could affect everyone in the country. This blog will explain why the Court’s ethical standards are so important, how outside money is being used to influence corrupt justices, and what can be done to fix these issues.

Why Ethics in the Supreme Court Matter

Nine justices run the Supreme Court, and their decisions impact the whole country. These justices are supposed to act fairly and honestly because they’re making decisions that affect all of us. But here’s the catch: unlike other federal judges who must follow strict rules of conduct, Supreme Court justices don’t have to follow the same rules. This means that whether they act ethically is up to them as individuals.

You might wonder how the court could be corrupted.

It comes down to the individual choices made by each of these nine justices. If they don’t follow high ethical standards, the whole system could fall apart, like a house of cards. Historically, justices were expected to act with honor and integrity simply because of the importance of their role. However, in today’s world, where money has found its way into politics in unprecedented ways, relying on personal honor isn’t enough anymore. Many believe it’s time for Supreme Court justices to follow the same ethical guidelines as other federal judges.

Loyal to Whom? How Outside Money Is Influencing Justices

The need for a strict code of ethics becomes even more apparent when you look at recent scandals involving the Supreme Court. It’s not just about money—issues like political involvement and leaks have rocked the Court, for example, accepting expensive gifts, luxury trips, and other benefits from wealthy people and organizations with a stake in the Court’s decisions.

1.     Getting paid to deliver the goods.

Justice Clarence Thomas has come under scrutiny for accepting various luxury gifts and benefits from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. These include luxury vacations, such as stays at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks and his estate in Texas, as well as multiple private jet flights and yacht cruises. Additionally, Crow purchased properties owned by Thomas and his family, including the house where Thomas’s mother resides, and made significant improvements to the property. This real estate transaction, valued at over $100,000, was not disclosed, raising further concerns.

Beyond these lavish experiences, Crow also paid for the private school tuition of a relative of Thomas, whom Thomas had raised as a son. Crow’s gifts also included historically significant items, such as a Bible once owned by Frederick Douglass and a bust of Abraham Lincoln. The acceptance of these gifts, along with the lack of transparency and disclosure, has sparked widespread criticism and led to calls for a formal code of ethics for Supreme Court justices to prevent potential conflicts of interest and maintain the integrity of the Court.

Here’s a timeline of Clarence Thomas’ gifts.

Justice Samuel Alito has also faced criticism for accepting undisclosed gifts and benefits from wealthy donors with potential interests before the Supreme Court. One notable instance involves a lavish fishing trip to Alaska, where Alito was hosted by billionaire Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager whose business interests have come before the Court. The trip included travel on a private jet, valued at several thousand dollars, which Alito did not report in his financial disclosures. This omission has raised serious ethical concerns, as Singer’s hedge fund was later involved in cases before the Supreme Court.

In addition to the Alaska trip, Alito has been linked to other instances where he reportedly accepted hospitality and benefits from individuals with significant business and political interests. These actions have drawn sharp criticism, mainly due to the lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest. The controversy surrounding Alito’s undisclosed gifts has intensified calls for Supreme Court justices to be held to stricter ethical standards, similar to those that govern lower federal judges, to ensure the Court’s decisions remain impartial and free from undue influence.

Justice Neil Gorsuch has faced scrutiny over a real estate transaction involving selling a property he co-owned. In 2017, shortly after Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court, he sold a 40-acre property in Colorado to the chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, a major law firm with extensive business before the Supreme Court. The property had been on the market for nearly two years with little interest, but it sold nine days after Gorsuch’s confirmation. Although Gorsuch reported the sale on his financial disclosure form, he did not disclose the buyer’s identity, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

This sale has attracted criticism due to the timing and the buyer’s connections to a law firm that regularly argues cases before the Court. Critics argue that this transaction could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if no direct wrongdoing is found. The lack of full transparency regarding the buyer’s identity has fueled further debate about the need for stricter ethical guidelines for Supreme Court justices to prevent any perception of bias or impropriety.

2.     Maintain an attitude of elite separateness and moral authority.

Justice Samuel Alito has come under intense scrutiny for flying flags associated with controversial political movements at both his homes, raising serious concerns about his impartiality as a Supreme Court justice. In January 2021, shortly after the January 6th insurrection, an upside-down American flag—a symbol adopted by those who falsely claimed the 2020 election was stolen—was seen outside Alito’s Virginia home.

According to reports, when asked about the upside-down American flag that was seen flying outside his Virginia home, Alito stated he had “no involvement whatsoever” in the flag’s display and explained that it was briefly placed by his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, in response to a neighbor’s use of “objectionable and personally insulting language” on yard signs.

Additionally, Alito displayed an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his New Jersey beach house, a symbol historically tied to the American Revolution but more recently associated with Christian nationalism and the “Stop the Steal” movement. These flags are not just ordinary displays of patriotism; they are potent symbols connected to divisive, partisan causes, particularly the efforts to overturn the results of a democratic election.

The display of these flags by a Supreme Court Justice is problematic for several reasons. First, it raises questions about Alito’s ability to remain impartial in cases related to the January 6th insurrection and other politically charged issues before the Court. Judges, especially those on the Supreme Court, are expected to avoid even the appearance of bias to maintain public confidence in the judiciary’s fairness and integrity.

3. Involvement in the January 6th coup is free speech – until it isn’t.

When a justice publicly associates with symbols linked to partisan political movements, it undermines the perception of neutrality that is essential for the Court’s legitimacy. This is particularly troubling at a time when the Supreme Court’s role in adjudicating deeply polarizing issues is more critical than ever. The ethical implications of such actions have led many to call for stricter ethical guidelines and recusal standards for Supreme Court justices to preserve the integrity of the nation’s highest court.

Justice Clarence Thomas has faced significant scrutiny due to the actions of his wife, Ginni Thomas, particularly her involvement in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Ginni Thomas, a prominent conservative activist, communicated with key figures in the Trump administration and other allies who were pushing to reject the certified results of the election.

She was in touch with John Eastman, a legal adviser to former President Trump, who played a pivotal role in formulating a plan to challenge the election results. Ginni also communicated with then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to continue efforts to overturn President Biden’s victory, and even reached out to Arizona lawmakers to encourage them to select an alternate slate of electors, despite Biden’s clear win in the state.

The implications of Ginni Thomas’s actions are deeply troubling, as they raise serious questions about Justice Clarence Thomas’s impartiality, especially in cases related to the January 6th insurrection and election disputes. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenting vote when the Supreme Court ruled to allow the January 6th committee access to certain Trump administration documents.

Critics argue that his involvement in these cases presents a direct conflict of interest.

The fact that Ginni Thomas’s publicly expressed belief in the false claims of election fraud further complicates the issue, as it suggests a direct alignment with the very movements that the Court may be called upon to adjudicate. This situation has led to growing calls for stricter recusal standards and ethical guidelines for Supreme Court justices to ensure that personal and familial connections do not undermine the public’s trust in the judicial system.

4. And, if you’re worried that your colleagues might change their minds? Trap ’em.

Justice Samuel Alito authored the Supreme Court’s decision, which was shared via the leaked draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This marked an unprecedented breach in the Court’s history. The draft, which revealed the Court’s intent to overturn Roe v. Wade, was published by Politico in May 2022, months before the final decision was officially released.

This leak sparked a widespread public outcry, leading to protests and heightened tensions surrounding the Court. The fact that a draft opinion was leaked at all—something that had never happened in the Supreme Court’s modern history—deeply shook public trust in the institution. The leak suggested a profound internal conflict within the Court and raised concerns about the integrity of its decision-making process.

The leak’s implications are far-reaching. It compromised confidentiality essential for the justices to deliberate freely and potentially influence the final decision, as it “helped lock in the result” by making it harder for any justice to change their vote once the draft was publicized. Moreover, the failure of the Court’s internal investigation to identify the leaker further eroded confidence in the institution’s ability to police itself. The entire episode has led to calls for reforms, including stronger ethical standards and increased transparency, to restore the credibility of the Supreme Court as a nonpartisan arbiter of the law.

These issues aren’t just minor problems; they strike at the very heart of what makes the Supreme Court a trusted part of our government. When the public sees that justices might be influenced by wealthy friends or political ties instead of following the law, it weakens the Court’s authority. If people don’t trust the Supreme Court, it loses its power to be the fair referee in our democracy.

Chief Justice John Roberts has jumped the shark. And more.

Once seen as a stabilizing force on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts has increasingly aligned himself with the Court’s more conservative wing. This shift has raised concerns about his role in maintaining the judiciary’s integrity. Roberts has faced criticism for his perceived reluctance to take decisive action on ethics reforms, even as the Court has been rocked by scandals involving other justices. His decisions have also drawn scrutiny, particularly his tendency to side with the conservative majority on issues that have far-reaching implications for democracy and governance.

For example, Roberts’s stance in cases involving voting rights and executive power has often aligned with the interests of conservative and pro-Trump factions, leading to accusations that he has abandoned his earlier institutionalist approach in favor of a more ideologically driven agenda. This shift has been particularly evident in recent terms. Roberts has increasingly joined Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in decisions that critics argue undermine long-standing legal precedents and erode public trust in the Court.

The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023

In response to the growing concerns about the Supreme Court’s ethical standards, lawmakers introduced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023. This legislation seeks to impose a formal code of conduct on the justices, similar to those governing lower federal judges. The Act would require justices to adhere to strict ethical guidelines, including mandatory disclosure of gifts and financial benefits, recusal in cases where conflicts of interest are present, and greater transparency in their decision-making processes.

The Act also aims to establish mechanisms to investigate and address ethical violations, providing a necessary check on the justices’ power. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a leading advocate for the Act, has emphasized the need for these reforms to restore public trust in the Supreme Court. Whitehouse has long warned about the dangers posed by undisclosed gifts and the influence of “dark money” on the judiciary, arguing that without these reforms, the integrity of the Supreme Court—and by extension, American democracy—remains at risk.

Unfortunately, despite the urgency of these reforms, the legislation has faced significant opposition, particularly from Republican lawmakers who currently control the House of Representatives. As a result, the Act has stalled, leaving the Supreme Court without the robust ethical oversight that many believe is necessary to preserve its integrity.

The Future of the Supreme Court: Three Scenarios

As discussions about reforming the Supreme Court continue, several potential paths forward have emerged:

More Rules and Ethical Oversight: Implementing a binding code of ethics for Supreme Court justices would ensure they are held to the same standards as other federal judges. This approach could include stricter rules on gift disclosures, recusal in cases of conflicts of interest, and greater transparency in their financial dealings. Such reforms would aim to rebuild public trust in the Court by clarifying that justices are not above the law and are accountable for their actions.

Term Limits for Justices: Another proposed reform is the introduction of term limits for Supreme Court justices. Currently, justices serve for life, which can lead to long-term entrenchment of power and influence. Term limits would help ensure a regular infusion of new perspectives on the Court and prevent justices from becoming too insulated from society’s changing values and needs. Proponents argue that term limits could be implemented by statute, without a constitutional amendment, and would help maintain the Court’s responsiveness to the public.

Expanding the Number of Justices: Some advocates suggest increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to balance its ideological makeup from nine to thirteen. This proposal, often called “court-packing,” would involve adding additional justices to the bench, potentially diluting the influence of any single bloc of justices. While this idea is controversial and could lead to further politicization of the Court, supporters argue that it is necessary to ensure that the Court reflects the diversity of views in American society.

When We Fight, We Win! Safeguarding the Future of the Supreme Court

The future of the Supreme Court depends on a careful balance between independence and accountability.

While ethical reforms are necessary, the path forward is fraught with challenges. Whether through the implementation of a binding code of ethics, the introduction of term limits, or the expansion of the Court, it is crucial that these reforms are pursued to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.

The stakes are high, as the Supreme Court’s ability to function as an impartial arbiter of the law is essential to the health of American democracy. As citizens, it is our responsibility to demand these changes and hold our elected officials accountable for ensuring that the highest court in the land remains a trusted institution. And vote democrat all the way down the ballot.