Hi,
The bombshell revelations about corruption at the Supreme Court just won’t
stop.
Over the span of eight years, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts raked
in $10.3 million from elite D.C. law firms that frequently appear before
the Court, a whistleblower says. Not once did Roberts disclose the money
or recuse himself from cases because of it.^1
The report about the Roberts's secret millions comes after news that
Justice Clarence Thomas accepted millions in lavish gifts and a sweetheart
real estate deal from a Republican megadonor, while Justice Neil Gorsuch
hid a property sale to one of the nation’s most powerful lawyers.^2,3,4
At every other branch of the U.S. government, payments like these would
trigger meticulous reporting and careful recusals — if they were allowed
at all. But the Supreme Court refuses to adopt an ethical code of conduct,
and the chief justice won’t even bother defending that decision to
Congress.^5,6
That’s why Demand Progress Action has mobilized more than 200,000 people
to press Congress to pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and
Transparency Act, requiring the nation’s highest court to follow basic
rules of disclosure and recusal.
[ [link removed] ]The Supreme Court has shown time and again that it won’t police itself.
Will you make a donation to Demand Progress Action and help support our
work, including urging Congress to pass a code of ethics for the Supreme
Court?
[ [link removed] ]Donate $10
[ [link removed] ]Donate $20
[ [link removed] ]Donate $40
[ [link removed] ]Or, donate another amount
The New York Times first reported in February that Jane Roberts was
earning big money in commissions from law firms and corporations that do
or seek to do business before the Court.^7 But $10.3 million?! That's
mind-blowing.
Worse yet, this money covers only part of Jane Roberts’s nearly two-decade
career as a high-powered legal headhunter, and it includes at least
$350,000 paid by the firm Wilmer Hale not long before it argued a case
before Chief Justice Roberts.
It reeks of corruption and pay-to-play. But Roberts can get away with it
because the Supreme Court has no ethical code of conduct. For the chief
justice and his eight colleagues — who are appointed for life and hold
tremendous power over our everyday lives — that’s unacceptable.
Supreme Court justices have shown time and again they believe they’re
above the law. But momentum for reform is building. The American Bar
Association says the Supreme Court needs a binding a code of ethics, and
legislation has been introduced in Congress to do just that.^8,9
[ [link removed] ]Will you donate $10 today to help urge Congress to pass a
code of ethics for the Supreme Court, and push for other key reforms?
With gratitude for all that you do,
Tihi and the team at Demand Progress Action
[ [link removed] ]DONATE
Sources:
1. Business Insider, "Jane Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John
Roberts, made $10.3 million in commissions from elite law firms,
whistleblower documents show," [ [link removed] ]April 28, 2023.
2. ProPublica, "Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire," [ [link removed] ]April 7, 2023.
3. ProPublica, "Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence
Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal." [ [link removed] ]April 13, 2023.
4. Politico, "Law firm head bought Gorsuch-owned property," [ [link removed] ]April 25,
2023.
5. The Washington Post, "Supreme Court justices discussed, but did not
agree on, code of conduct," [ [link removed] ]February 9, 2023.
6. NPR, "Chief Justice Roberts declines to testify before Senate panel,"
[ [link removed] ]April 25, 2023.
7. The New York Times, "At the Supreme Court, Ethics Questions Over a
Spouse’s Business Ties," [ [link removed] ]January 31, 2023.
8. American Bar Association, "Supreme Court Justices Should Follow Binding
Code of Ethics, ABA House Says," [ [link removed] ]February 27, 2023.
9. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., "Murphy, Johnson Reintroduce Bicameral Bill
Requiring SCOTUS to Follow Code of Ethics," [ [link removed] ]February 9, 2023.
----------
PAID FOR BY DEMAND PROGRESS (<a href="[link removed]">DemandProgress.org</a>) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Join our online community on <b><a href="[link removed]">Facebook</a></b> or <b><a href="[link removed]">Twitter</a>.</b>
You can unsubscribe from this list at any time: [link removed]
