Embedded Files
The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.
The ethical problems plaguing the US Supreme Court primarily center on undisclosed financial gifts, political conflicts of interest, and the absence of an independent enforcement mechanism to hold justices accountable. While lower federal court judges are bound by strict statutory rules, Supreme Court justices historically operated under a system of self-policing. This dynamic has severely damaged the institution's public approval ratings and triggered calls for systemic reform
The Court derives its power mainly from its legitimacy. When it loses that legitimacy, gaining compliance with its rulings becomes more challenging. For most of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court has enjoyed a relatively high level of public approval, but recently that has changed to be much more disapproving.
The need to maintain this legitimacy drives some people to push for judicial restraint, encouraging judges to respect the majority's wishes. Although we often highlight significant cases where the Supreme Court played a key role in bringing about social change, like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, the reality is that the Supreme Court usually aligns with public opinion over time. As political scientist Robert Dahl pointed out, aside from brief periods of change, the Supreme Court remains part of the dominant national alliance because that alliance ultimately decides who serves on the Court. The highly politicised nature of recent appointments has likely led to a change in attitudes.
2023 criticism of the Supreme Court prompted the court to adopt its first code of ethics, but it lacks any form of enforcement. Meanwhile, public confidence in the court has plummeted to near-historic lows. “The highest court in the land today has the lowest ethical standards,” said Jamie Raskin, a Democratic congressman from Maryland, and the ranking member of the House oversight committee
Justice Clarence Thomas officially disclosed that he took luxury vacations paid for by the conservative billionaire, Harlan Crow. The Republican mega-donor also paid private school tuition for Thomas’s grandnephew
Justice Alito in a report in the New York Times that his wife flew an upside-down US flag outside his home in Virginia days after the attack on the US Capitol by extremist Trump supporters, as well as an Appeal to Heaven flag that flew outside a beach home in New Jersey. The upside-down flag is associated with the January 6 attack on the Capitol and the latter with Christian nationalism.
Clarence Thomas has also declined calls to recuse (remove) himself from cases involving Trump because his wife, Ginni, a well-known conservative activist, supported the former president’s false claims of election fraud and helped lead the campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Alito is accused of not disclosing gifts from a rightwing billionaire who lobbied for the court to end Biden’s loan relief program.
Democrats have introduced bills such as one to establish an independent ethics office and internal investigations counsel within the supreme court. Other ideas include limiting the justices to 18 year-terms rather than lifetime appointments and expanding the seats on the court. But reforms are unlikely to happen without Republicans, who have spent decades building the court’s conservative majority. South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate judiciary committee, said that he will block Democrats’ attempts to pass an ethics bill to rein in the US Supreme Court.
Graham told NBC News that he “will object” to the bill on Wednesday, meaning it will not move forward on its legislative journey.
As recently as 28 years ago, Supreme Court nominees tended to be confirmed by broad bipartisan support in the Senate. Today, in a closely divided Senate, confirmation hearings can degenerate into character assassination that have little to do with the nominee’s qualifications and everything to do with ensuring that the final vote is as partisan — and narrow — as possible.
The Supreme Court released a batch of far-reaching rulings striking down affirmative action in colleges, LBGTQ+ rights and Joe Biden’s student loan relief program.
The Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration’s $430bn student debt forgiveness plan in a blow to up to 40 million borrowers in the US. In a 6-3 decision, the conservative-leaning supermajority of justices ruled that the 2003 Heroes Act, passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US, does not authorize Biden’s debt forgiveness plan. The law gave the secretary of education authority to make changes to any provision of applicable student aid program laws in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US. The decision strikes down a major tenet of the Biden administration’s program, with the 2024 election quickly approaching.
In a 6 to 3 ruling, they slashed to the ground anti-discrimination protections to allow a devout Christian web designer to turn away same-sex couples. In 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, which deals with a challenge to a Colorado law prohibiting public-serving businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as any statements announcing such a policy.
Following their historic overturning of Roe v Wade the six rightwing justices – three appointed by Trump – 6 to 3 ruling barring affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina will affect virtually every selective higher education institution in the US, with potential ramifications far beyond.
“They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself. And that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on, the danger of this court and the abuse of power.” Elena Kagan
Lobbying the Court:
Lobbying the Court:
10th June 2024 The Supreme Court issued a report in response to a petition from fossil fuel companies The high court receives thousands of petitions each year, giving each one only a small chance of being reviewed. But in recent weeks, rightwing fossil fuel allies have pushed the justices to take up oil companies’ request using a variety of media sources to mount a campaign to thwart litigation that could cost them billions of dollars. Some of the groups behind the pressure campaign – which experts say is unprecedented – are connected to far-right supreme court architect Leonard Leo, who co-chairs the ultraconservative legal advocacy group the Federalist Society.
10th June 2024 The Supreme Court issued a report in response to a petition from fossil fuel companies The high court receives thousands of petitions each year, giving each one only a small chance of being reviewed. But in recent weeks, rightwing fossil fuel allies have pushed the justices to take up oil companies’ request using a variety of media sources to mount a campaign to thwart litigation that could cost them billions of dollars. Some of the groups behind the pressure campaign – which experts say is unprecedented – are connected to far-right supreme court architect Leonard Leo, who co-chairs the ultraconservative legal advocacy group the Federalist Society.
The one-line order will delay the litigation from advancing to trial.
“Big oil companies are fighting desperately to avoid trial in lawsuits like Honolulu’s, which would expose the evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s climate lies for the entire world to see,” said Richard Wiles, president of the non-profit Center for Climate Integrity, which supports climate accountability litigation.
Honolulu is one of dozens of cities and states to sue oil majors for allegedly hiding the dangers of their products from the public. In October, Hawaii’s supreme court ruled that the suit can go to trial.
Major Ethical Concerns
Major Ethical Concerns
Undisclosed Gifts and Luxury Travel: Investigations revealed that multiple justices accepted millions of dollars in luxury travel, private jet flights, and vacations from wealthy political donors without disclosing them. ProPublica reporting notably highlighted Justice Clarence Thomas accepting multi-million dollar hospitality perks from billionaire Harlan Crow.
Conflicts of Interest and Failure to Recuse: Justices have faced criticism for participating in cases where they or their spouses have financial or political entanglements. For instance, Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Thomas, actively worked to overturn the 2020 election results, yet Justice Thomas did not recuse himself from key cases surrounding the January 6 Capitol riot. [1, 2, 3]
Only one justice voted in support of Trump’s request to block the House Jan. 6 committee subpoena for White House records: Clarence Thomas. Thomas’s wife, Ginni, not only attended the rally preceding the Capitol attack but also lobbied White House officials and state legislators to take steps to overturn the election. According to the practice of the court, it is up to justices to decide for themselves what constitutes a conflict of interest and what merits — or does not merit — recusal from a case.
Outside Income and Business Ties: Spouses of justices have pulled in millions of dollars from entities that could be impacted by the court. Jane Sullivan Roberts, wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, earned significant commissions working as a legal recruiter for law firms that argue cases before the Supreme Court. [1, 2]
Political Activity and Partisan Alignments: The Code of Conduct states that justices should avoid political campaigning. However, instances of justices speaking at private fundraising events bankrolled by hyper-partisan networks—such as the Koch brothers' network—have fueled accusations that the judiciary is overly politicized. [1, 2]
When lower courts blocked many of Trump’s controversial orders, his Justice Department often turned to the Supreme Court for help. In turn, the court has used its emergency-power mechanism more than ever in part to speed conservative aims. Usually, the court decides cases following full briefing and oral argument from both parties. Using the court’s “shadow docket,” justices can issue unsigned orders without briefing, argument or written explanation.
The 2023 Code of Conduct and Its Flaws
In November 2023, following intense public scrutiny, the Supreme Court issued its first formal Code of Conduct for Justices. However, judicial ethics experts heavily criticize this document due to several key loopholes: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
No Enforcement Mechanism: There is no independent body or inspector general to investigate complaints, meaning the justices themselves remain the ultimate arbiters of whether they have violated the rules. [1, 2]
Aspirational Language: The text heavily relies on the word "should" rather than mandatory directives like "must" or "shall," leading critics to dismiss it as voluntary "window dressing".
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse