Alito trip shows Supreme Court needs an ethics code

After filling its docket with cases on divisive issues such as affirmative action, gay rights, gun regulations and student loan debt, the Supreme Court heads into the final days of its current term having issued fewer decisions at this point than in any of the past six years. The comity of the justices remains haunted by the still unresolved leak of a draft of its 2022 ruling overturning Roe. V. Wade, a troubling lack of public confidence, and now, a second ethics controversy about a member accepting gifts. 

The latest problem involves Justice Samuel Alito who in 2008 accepted an expensive Alaskan adventure vacation including a ride on a private jet at the largesse of billionaire Paul Singer, who is involved with companies whose cases come before the court. The justice's tab for his stay at a luxury fishing lodge was picked up by another wealthy donor to conservative causes. The reporting once again came from Pro Publica, which in April detailed expensive vacations and other gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas from another billionaire, Harlan Crow. At the center of all these connections is Leonard Leo, head of the Federalist Society, whose recommendations have created a pipeline for federal justices. 

In Alito's tortured rebuttal, he argued the jet would have flown with an empty seat anyway and that it was cheaper for taxpayers because he didn't need any security. Alito said the federal rules in effect then did not require him to disclose the trip or to recuse himself from deciding cases connected to Singer. 

As of March, new guidelines for federal judges make it clear that disclosure is required for private jet trips and stays at non-private residences, but Alito's view that this was ever acceptable judicial behavior is stunningly arrogant.

It's well past time for the justices, who have lifetime tenure, to come up with a code of conduct for themselves. Such a code would be a standard by which they could be held accountable in the court of public opinion and a measure of whether their conduct is grounds for impeachment, the only constitutional method to discipline a justice for conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee must subpoena Crow and Singer, and question them about the details of their largesse to the justices.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts has been disappointingly vague about any recognition that the justices must confront their tanking credibility. “I want to assure people that I’m committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct. We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment," Roberts said in May.

In February, after the Thomas-Crow reports, the American Bar Association said that “the absence of a clearly articulated, binding code of ethics for the justices of the Court imperils the legitimacy of the Court.”

That jeopardy increases with each disclosure of impropriety.