As the summer of 2023 ended, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court began trading even-more-confidential-than-usual memos, avoiding their standard email list and instead passing paper documents in envelopes to each other’s chambers. Faced with ethics controversies and a plunge in public trust, they were debating rules for their own conductjilipark, according to people familiar with the process.
Weeks later, as a united front, they announced the results: the court’s first-ever ethics code. “It’s remarkable that we were able to agree unanimously,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said in a television interview this year.
But a New York Times examination found that behind the scenes, the court had divided over whether the justices’ new rules could — or should — ever be enforced.
Justice Gorsuch was especially vocal in opposing any enforcement mechanism beyond voluntary compliance, arguing that additional measures could undermine the court. The justices’ strength was their independence, he said, and he vowed to have no part in diminishing it.
In the private exchanges, Justice Clarence Thomas, whose decision not to disclose decades of gifts and luxury vacations from wealthy benefactors had sparked the ethics controversy, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote off the court’s critics as politically motivated and unappeasable.
Image
Jodi KantorReporter, InvestigationsGood morning. I'm curious: is there anyone who found themselves shifting views about enforcement, or feeling torn, after reading this article?
CCaiMississauga, Canada@Jodi KantorI'd been more absolutist in belief that gifts and benefits to Justices and family members should be banned. The article helped me understand how Justices could see restrictions as impinging on the independence of the court.I would have liked more discussion of how "hospitality" and paid speeches can be linked to both cases expected soon, and potentially to cases and issues that may arise years later.I find it interesting that, like members of Congress, salaries are too low to support what the public seems to accept as their appropriate standard of living. We never seem to consider increasing salaries as part of reducing the need to accept gifts, deals, and benefits.Not to say salaries must be in the millions, or that those who have wealth won't feel they need more, but it needs to be possible for Justices to support themselves and their immediate families without outside work or gifts.And seriously, isn't the Supreme Court a full-time job? If there is still work to be done, should Justices be spending time writing books, giving speeches, or taking extensive vacations?Still, really liked the article. Good reporting. Thanks.
Read full commentKKentCharlotte NC@Jodi Kantor Not I. Why shouldn’t SC justices be held to the same standards of other federal judges?
RRichard RobbinsNew York City@Jodi Kantor Amazing reporting. But…. I see the inherent corruption — that Justices are enriched by billionaires with matters before the Court — as a mere symptom of a far deeper problem. The Court, which was intended to be above politics, is a nakedly political body. Five members of the Republican supermajority are directly tied to Bush v Gore —Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett worked on behalf of Bush, Alito was appointed by Bush, and Thomas was one of the Justices voting in the 5-4 decision to stop counting votes in Florida and award the presidency to Bush. And Gorsuch gained entry to the Court thanks to McConnell blocking Garland’s nomination.Of course, thanks to these blatant partisans (and their predecessors), Trump was declared above the law blocking his prosecution for January 6 and Elon Musk could spend over $100 million to secure Trump’s election.While it would be great if there were protections in place preventing Justices from being bought by billionaires, that wouldn’t fix the deeper issue of extreme partisanship.
Read full commentNNatalieFL@Jodi Kantor The article helped me understand that the conservative judges feel enforcement would undermine the independence of the institution (or at least that’s the reasoning). I think they’re missing a crucial aspect: public confidence in the institution. I’m not saying anyone needs to be a martyr, but if you value personal gifts and perks more than public confidence in the Supreme Court- you might not be the person for the job.
Read full commentWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.jilipark
