If you are looking for a break from indictment and election news, you may be interested in my essay on the new gift disclosure rules for the Supreme Court, and why the justices may not comply with them.
Here is the gist:
Will the Supreme Court justices comply with new rules on gift disclosure?
By Steven Lubet, Opinion Contributor – 4/05/23
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) recently claimed a small victory, when, as he put it, the Judicial Conference of the United States “adopted new, stricter rules requiring far more disclosure of free trips, meals, and other ‘hospitality’ accepted by federal judges and Supreme Court justices.”
Under the old Judicial Conference rule, “judicial officers” were required to report the receipt of gifts worth over $415, with a broad exception for “personal hospitality.” The term “personal” had apparently been interpreted to mean something like “extended by an individual” rather than by a business or corporation, thus allowing the undisclosed acceptance of resort vacations and private jet travel, so long as the invitations were made by acquaintances, even if some other entity was underwriting the expense.
Whitehouse may have spoken too soon.
Chief Justice John Roberts has made it clear that the justices are jealous of their individual prerogatives and do not feel bound by outside constraints.
In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Roberts denied the authority of the Judicial Conference, stating that its “committees have no mandate to prescribe rules or standards” for the Supreme Court.
There is no record, of course, of privately funded travel or vacations that the justices have withheld under a loose interpretation of the “personal hospitality” exemption.
Whitehouse deserves congratulations for prompting the new gift rule, but he has much work ahead of him. The Supreme Court needs its own ethical code, with no hedging or reservations, and the sooner the better.
You can read the full essay at The Hill.
Comments