No wonder U.S. Supreme Court justices were seven weeks late releasing their financial disclosure reports to the public. They have plenty to hide.
Fix the Court, a national, nonpartisan grassroots organization created to serve as a watchdog for the Supreme Court, calls the Supremes' disclosure reports released Thursday "a minefield of potential conflicts of interest and ethical problems that may do untold -- and unnecessary -- damage to the integrity of the institution."
The reports reveal particularly scathing information on the 2014 dealings of three justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito. These three maintained positions in publicly traded companies worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And here's the rub: Many of these publicly traded companies appeared before the high court either as litigants or as filers of amicus curiae -- “friend of the court” -- briefs.
Here's what we now know thanks to Fix the Court: Roberts owns up to $750,000 in shares of Time Warner and its subsidiaries at the time last year when the cable giant filed a pro-broadcasters brief in ABC v. Aereo. And, wouldn't you know, the appellants won 6-3 last June, with Roberts in the majority.
Not only that, Breyer comes clean on $100,000 in IT services firm EMC Corp. and Roberts held up to $50,000 in Hewlett-Packard last year. Both businesses filed briefs in favor of Teva Pharmaceuticals, which won its patent case against generic drug-maker Sandoz, 7-2 -- again, with Breyer and Roberts in the majority.
In order to minimize recusals and last-minute stock selloffs -- and to ensure the justices aren’t caught in the ethical conundrum of hearing a case that features an amicus brief written by a company whose shares they own -- Fix the Court has called on the justices to place their securities into blind trusts -- same thing presidents, presidential candidates and a number of congressmen do. Even Florida Gov. Rick Scott uses a blind trust.
In fact, in a first-of-its-kind report released last month, Fix the Court found that between 2009 and 2014, Roberts, Breyer and Alito had sided with companies whose stocks they own nearly 70 percent of at the time those companies filed an amicus brief.
“Not only is the process by which the justices provide the public access to information about their finances antiquated, but the reports themselves outline just how far the justices have to go to achieve even a minimal level of accountability,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court.
“It’s impossible to say whether justices’ stock ownership played a factor in their decisions, but we shouldn’t have to ask that question. Instead, those who own shares in individual companies should take reasonable steps, like creating blind trusts, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.”
Fix the Court has also called on the justices to modernize the financial disclosure process by putting the reports online, as the legislative and executive branches do -- a reform that has the support of nearly 70 percent of Americans. Unfortunately this year, the justices, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO) that receives the reports and the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure again failed to modernize, maintaining the practice of releasing only paper copies of the disclosures.
In order to obtain the justices’ reports, Fix the Court said in a written statement Thursday it went through this palava: It "downloaded and filled out a form from the AO website and faxed it in. Then, after receiving notice the reports were ready seven weeks later, as well as notice of the cost of the reports at $0.20 per page, Fix the Court staff went in person to present a $17.20 check at the AO building in Washington, D.C., at which point AO staff handed over the paper reports."
Have a look at the nine justices' financial disclosure reports here.
In its " transparency takeaways" in the wake of the high court's recent health care and same-sex marriage decisions, Fix the Court noted these:
- "As far as we know, Roberts did not respond to a lawmakers' letter urging live audio of opinion announcements. Luckily this time, all major news outlets got the holding right, but the idea that such a major decision by public figures happened away from all but 0.00001 percent of the American public is shameful and anachronistic."
- "The audio of the pivotal Supreme Court sessions in which the health care and same-sex marriage decisions were announced will be available in October. That's not a joke."
Largely because of Fix the Court's heavy lift, lawmakers in Washington reintroduced bills in April that would direct U.S. Supreme Court justices to adopt the same binding code of ethics used by all other federal judges.
The Supreme Court Ethics Act would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of the ethics within 180 days. The nine justices are currently exempt from the code of conduct U.S. judges follow to ensure neutrality and transparency in the nation's courts. The bills still haven't been acted upon.
A code of ethics binds nearly every judge in America. The sole exceptions are the justices of the Supreme Court.
Think about it for a minute. No ethics rule prevents a justice from engaging in political activity, speaking at the fundraising event of a partisan organization, or joining a club that discriminates based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. Ethics rules for all other federal judges forbid these activities.
Absurd and entirely unacceptable.
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: @NancyLBSmith
