Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Is the Supreme Court partisan?

Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito

Articles of impeachment have been filed againts Justices Clarence Thomas (left) and Samuel Alito (right).

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Nelson is a retired attorney and served as an associate justice of the Montana Supreme Court from 1993 through 2012.

On June 10, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) introduced articles of impeachment against Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The two resolutions were grounded in the justices’ alleged violation of multiple sections of the U.S. Constitution: Article III (federal judges entitled to hold office during “good behaviour”), Article II (federal judges to be removed from office by impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors). The resolutions also claim Thomas and Alito violated U.S. laws: ‘‘[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’’ and requiring reporting of the source, description and value of gifts.


The offending justices’ misconduct, as detailed in the two resolutions, is stunning. I would venture that if any judge in a state trial or appellate court were charged with similar conduct, that judge would be referred to appropriate disciplinary authorities, impeached, recalled or otherwise removed from his or her office.

That would certainly be the case in Montana. (Indeed, Montana’s Legislature, attorney general and governor would descend upon the court’s chambers with pitchforks and torches.)

Thomas’ and Alito’s misconduct has been widely and publicly reported. Not surprisingly, however, the high court has done nothing to police its own members or require compliance with ethical standards or federal law.

Seemingly, the members of this country’s highest appellate court consider themselves to be, and operate as if they are, above the law.

For example, Thomas is charged with failing to recuse himself from sitting on numerous cases in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The subject cases concerned challenges to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, in which his wife Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, had an interest. The details of her interest and the justice’s misconduct are set out in one of the resolutions. Word limitations prohibit a full discussion of those here, but suffice to say that Ginni Thomas’ involvement thoroughly compromised Clarence Thomas’ impartiality.

Thomas is also charged with failing to recuse himself from sitting on numerous proceedings concerning entities in which his wife had a financial interest. Again, the resolution details the story of how Thomas flagrantly violated federal ethics law and betrayed his constitutional oath of office.

Finally, Thomas is charged with violating federal law by failing to disclose the source, description and value of hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts and amenities he and his wife received over some 15 years from a wealthy individual affiliated with an entity that regularly files briefs before the court.

Similarly, the resolution introduced against Alito details his misconduct. He is charged with failing to recuse himself from cases in which he had a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party — specifically his supporting those persons who incited and executed the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

Like Thomas, Alito is also charged with failing to disclose gifts of luxury travel and amenities given to him by organizations and individuals with interests before the court.

The two justices’ misconduct, detailed in the impeachment resolutions, is appalling. The Supreme Court should set the gold standard for judicial ethics, compliance with federal law and the rule of law. Instead of a model, however, the Roberts Court has made a mockery of all three. Politics and corrupt conduct are tolerated, not punished.

To that point, on Sept. 12, 2021, Justice Amy Coney Barrett gave a speech at the 30th anniversary of the University of Louisville McConnell Center in Kentucky. She rejected claims that decisions by the high court are driven by political views.

Then, in a quintessential display of hypocrisy, Barrett sanctimoniously proclaimed that judges must be “hyper vigilant to make sure that they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people too.” She solemnly intoned that the court “is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

Based on the two resolutions referred to herein, not to mention the court’s failure to adhere to any code of judicial ethics, federal law and the rule of law, I beg to differ with you, Justice Barrett.

Your court is full of partisan hacks.

Read More

Ed Martin’s Plan to Shame Trump's Enemies Threatens the Rule of Law

The Department of Justice logo is displayed.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Ed Martin’s Plan to Shame Trump's Enemies Threatens the Rule of Law

For a long time, scholars, commentators, and officials have debated the efficacy of shame as a form of punishment. Opinion has been divided over the efficacy and appropriateness of using it as a response to a criminal conviction.

But nowhere did anyone ever suggest that shaming someone would be an acceptable reason to prosecute them. Until now.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Attacks on Lawyers and the Legal Profession

Someone tipping the scales of justice.

Getty Images, sommart

Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Attacks on Lawyers and the Legal Profession

Project Overview

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy explaining in practical terms what the administration’s executive orders and other executive actions mean for all of us. Each of these actions springs from the pages of Project 2025, the administration's 900-page playbook that serves as the foundation for these measures. The Project 2025 agenda should concern all of us, as it tracks strategies adopted by countries such as Hungary, that have eroded democratic norms and have adopted authoritarian approaches to governing.

Project 2025’s stated intent to move quickly to “dismantle” the federal government will strip the public of important protections against excessive presidential power and provide big corporations with enormous opportunities to profit by preying on America's households.

Keep ReadingShow less
Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard

Shadow of a boy

Getty Images/mrs

Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard

Justice is not swift for anyone, and even less so for children. In Mexico, as in many other countries, children who are victims of crime must endure not only the pain of what they have lived through, but also the institutional delays that, instead of protecting them, expose them to new forms of harm. If we truly acted with the urgency that child protection demands, why doesn’t the justice system respond with the same urgency?

Since January, a seven-year-old girl in Mexico, a survivor of sexual violence at her school, has been waiting for a federal judge to resolve an amparo, a constitutional appeal she filed requesting the right to participate in the criminal case against her aggressor in a protected and adapted manner. According to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Mexico’s highest court), amparos must be used as urgent remedies when fundamental rights are at imminent risk. And yet, four months have passed with no resolution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Judge gavel and book on the laptop

Getty Images/Stock

Understanding The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Background

In November 2024, Elon Musk posted on social media, “There should be no need for [Freedom of Information Act] requests. All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.” His statement reignited discussions on the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, a federal law enacted in 1966 that requires federal executive branch agencies to disclose information in specific ways. Since its original passage in 1966, FOIA has been updated three times to tighten agency compliance, account for digital records, and allow citizens to request records online. Under FOIA, government agencies must disclose information by:

  • Publishing procedural rules in the Federal Register
  • Electronically disclosing certain frequently requested records
  • Disclosing all covered records not already available upon request

FOIA includes nine exemptions to protect against harms that might result from divulging certain records; these exemptions include cases like invasion of personal privacy, information related to national security, and information that would interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

Keep ReadingShow less