Justice Scandals
The Supreme Court, particularly under Trump’s appointees, has made several controversial rulings recently. Most notably, it overturned Roe v. Wade and made presidents immune from consequences for "official acts", eliminating the constitutional right to abortion and significantly impacting women's reproductive rights. The Court also made it illegal to be homeless, forgive student loans, limited federal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and favored religious exemptions in employment discrimination cases. Additionally, its decisions on voting rights have implications for how elections are conducted. These rulings reflect a conservative shift in legal interpretations and have been further complicated by ethical controversies surrounding some justices.
How was Ginni Thomas Involved in the January 6 Insurrection?
Clarence Thomas received gifts from wealthy donors.
Leonard Leo Purchased the Supreme Court
Samuel Alito Flies the Flag Upside Down
Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Scandal
Amy Coney Barrett's Religious Community With Actual Handmaids
Neil Gorsuch Rules Against Disabled People
John Roberts and his Court with No Honor
Why do so many Unpopular Court Cases come out of the 5th Circuit?
Ginni Thomas was in touch with White House and other officials following the 2020 election, advocating for efforts to overturn the results of the presidential race.
In one notable email, Thomas reached out to Arizona state lawmakers, urging them to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure” and to take decisive action to ensure the selection of a “clean slate of Electors.” This communication is particularly significant given that Biden had won Arizona in the 2020 election, indicating the extent to which Thomas was involved in advocating for actions that could disrupt the democratic process.
Additionally, Thomas's interactions extended to Mark Meadows, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. Reports from both the *Washington Post* and CBS News indicate that Thomas messaged Meadows regarding the efforts to overturn the election results, further highlighting the intertwining of judicial and political spheres during this critical period in American democracy.
The implications of these revelations are profound, raising questions about the ethical boundaries for Supreme Court justices and their involvement in political matters. Critics argue that Thomas's actions may reflect a troubling overlap between judicial authority and partisan politics, potentially undermining public trust in the impartiality of the judiciary. As the committee continues its investigation, these communications contribute to a broader narrative about the lengths to which some individuals went to challenge the integrity of the electoral process in the United States.
Justice Clarence Thomas received undisclosed gifts and luxury travel from wealthy donors
In documents obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee as a result of the subpoena authorization for information from Harlan Crow on November 30, 2023, Crow revealed travel and gifts that Justice Thomas has failed to disclose to date, including:
-
- May 2017 private jet travel from St. Louis, MO, to Kalispell, MT, and return flight to Dallas, TX;
- March 2019 private jet travel from Washington, DC, to Savannah, GA, and back; and
- June 2021 private jet travel from Washington, DC, to San Jose, CA, and back.
Recent revelations have highlighted significant ethical concerns surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas, particularly regarding undisclosed gifts and luxury travel. Documents have surfaced detailing private jet travel and an extravagant eight-day yacht excursion associated with Thomas’s July 2019 trip to Indonesia, as well as additional private jet travel related to a trip to Santa Rosa, California, during the same month. Alarmingly, Thomas failed to disclose these trips in his amendment to his 2019 financial disclosure report, raising questions about the accuracy and completeness of the information he chooses to report.
Further complicating matters, the documents from donor Harlan Crow indicate discrepancies in the reported dates for the July 2019 Indonesia trip, casting further doubt on the veracity of Justice Thomas's disclosures. Investigative reporting has also uncovered that Thomas has accepted nearly $4.2 million in gifts over his two decades on the Supreme Court—an astonishing sum that is nearly ten times the total value of gifts received by his fellow justices during the same period.
Senator Dick Durbin, who has been vocal about the need for ethical reform within the Supreme Court, expressed his concerns, stating, “Nearly $4.2 million in gifts wasn’t enough for Justice Thomas, with at least three additional trips the Committee found that he has failed to disclose to date.” Durbin emphasized that the ongoing investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee into the Supreme Court's ethical crisis is yielding critical information, underscoring the urgent need for an enforceable code of conduct for the nation’s highest court.
He highlighted the troubling reality that Chief Justice John Roberts has not acted on this issue despite the Court's declining approval ratings and a series of self-inflicted scandals. Durbin reaffirmed the Committee's commitment to push for the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which aims to bring necessary reforms to ensure accountability among justices.
Legally, it is worth noting that the financial disclosure statute (5 U.S.C. 13104(a)(2)(A)) stipulates that only “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual” need not be reported, while gifts of transportation must be disclosed. Thomas's continued failure to report his luxury travel raises serious ethical questions and reinforces the calls for greater transparency and accountability within the Supreme Court. As these investigations continue, they not only shine a light on the conduct of Justice Thomas but also highlight a broader need for ethical standards that govern the behavior of Supreme Court justices.
Leonard Leo is a prominent figure in the conservative movement, particularly known for his influence on judicial appointments and shaping the U.S. judiciary.
As a key strategist for the Federalist Society, he has played a crucial role in the selection of conservative judges, including Supreme Court justices who contributed to landmark decisions, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Leo's financial resources, reportedly exceeding a billion dollars, enable him to significantly impact political landscapes and conservative initiatives. He is heavily involved in Project 2025, which aims to restructure the federal government according to Christian nationalist principles. This initiative seeks to dismantle various social rights, promote religious institutions, and redefine policies on issues like LGBTQ+ rights and abortion.
Through his efforts, Leo aims to embed conservative values within the federal government, leveraging his extensive network and financial backing to drive a far-reaching conservative agenda that could reshape American society and governance.
Leonard Leo secured a historic $1.6 billion donation for his legal network through an introduction facilitated by the Federalist Society. This donation is believed to be the largest political contribution ever recorded.
Leo met Barre Seid, a manufacturing magnate, through Eugene Meyer, the director of the Federalist Society, who initially envisioned Seid as a supporter of the society. However, Leo successfully cultivated Seid as a donor for his own dark money operations. This arrangement raises concerns about the close ties between the Federalist Society, which claims to be a nonpartisan educational organization, and Leo's activist network.
The significant funding from Seid is expected to bolster Leo's efforts to reshape conservative activism in the U.S., with a focus on policies that align with Christian nationalist principles. Leo's network has also funneled millions into the Federalist Society, highlighting a symbiotic relationship that blurs the lines between nonprofit advocacy and political activism. Critics within the society express concerns that Leo's activities could undermine its reputation and mission.
Why did Samuel Alito have an Upside Down Flag outside his house?
Justice Samuel Alito is currently presiding over two significant cases related to the events of January 6, including one concerning former President Donald Trump's role in the insurrection. These cases could have profound implications for the nation's future. Alito has made headlines recently by asserting that he will not recuse himself from these cases, despite facing scrutiny regarding his impartiality. He has defended his decision by stating that it is ultimately up to him to determine whether he can remain fair and unbiased.
In his defense, Alito cited the Supreme Court's ethics guidelines, which suggest that the key factor is whether an impartial observer would believe he could render a fair judgment. He emphasized that the specific circumstances surrounding his involvement matter significantly.
In a letter to Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, Alito recounted an incident in which a neighbor displayed a sign that personally attacked his wife, and a man verbally berated her in his presence using offensive language. Alito claimed that this incident prompted his wife to display an upside-down flag—a symbol often associated with distress.
However, this narrative has been challenged by neighbors who were involved in the situation. They assert that the timeline Alito provided is inaccurate. Specifically, they claim that the confrontation he referenced occurred later, on February 15, while the upside-down flag was raised at their home on January 17—weeks earlier.
Emily Baden, one of Alito's neighbors, expressed her disbelief in an interview with CNN, stating, "At best, he's mistaken, but at worst, he's just outright lying." She pointed out that the flag was already flying long before the alleged confrontation took place, raising questions about the motivations behind its display.
This timeline is crucial, as it highlights the discrepancy between Alito's account and the actual sequence of events. The implications of these cases, coupled with the surrounding controversy, further complicate Alito's position and the broader conversation about judicial ethics and accountability in high-stakes political matters.
Neil Gorsuch has a shaky record on disability rulings
Two notable cases emerged during Judge Gorsuch's tenure on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, both involving disability rights.
The first case involved Assistant Professor Grace Hwang, who had a successful 15-year career at Kansas State University. After being diagnosed with cancer, she took a six-month leave of absence for recovery from a bone marrow transplant. As she prepared to return in January, a flu epidemic swept the campus. Given her compromised immune system, Professor Hwang requested a short extension of her leave, during which she could work from home. However, the university denied her request, prompting Hwang to sue.
Under established disability rights laws, requests for leave due to disability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if fulfilling the request would impose an undue hardship on the employer. This is fundamentally a factual determination. Yet, before any evidence could be presented regarding potential accommodations for KSU—a federally funded institution—Judge Gorsuch ruled that Professor Hwang's request was unreasonable. He claimed that "showing up" was an essential job function and suggested that the Rehabilitation Act should not "turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work." This interpretation was both factually and legally flawed. Hwang had consistently demonstrated her ability to "show up" for 15 years and could have telecommuted during the flu outbreak. The real issue was whether the university should grant her a brief additional leave as a reasonable accommodation to facilitate her full return to work.
Gorsuch's ruling contradicted guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, decisions from other circuits, and reasoning from the Supreme Court in *U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett*. In *Barnett*, the Supreme Court established that a reasonable accommodation might require modifying a neutral employer rule, even if it resulted in a “preference” for the disabled employee. Had Gorsuch applied this reasoning in Hwang's case, the university would only have needed to allow her to work from home for a limited time.
In a second disability rights case, an administrative law judge and a federal district court judge agreed that a young autistic boy named Luke needed placement in a residential school program due to his lack of progress in applying skills learned at school to other environments. However, Judge Gorsuch reversed this decision, arguing that since Luke was making "some progress" in public school—despite showing no progress outside of it—the school district had met its obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Yet, Congress intended for the IDEA to support students in making progress toward independent living, not just within the school environment. The narrow standard applied by Gorsuch is currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the core principles of disability rights laws is leveling the playing field to provide equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities—whether in education, employment, or community participation. The Americans with Disabilities Act and other related laws acknowledge financial, practical, and administrative burdens while emphasizing the need for individualized assessments. Accommodations that suit one person may not work for another, and what is feasible for one employer may pose challenges for another. Courts should focus on the facts rather than impose arbitrary, rigid rules.
Judge Gorsuch's rulings in these disability cases raise significant concerns about his commitment to recognizing the rights of individuals with disabilities and his willingness to ensure that justice is individualized and equitable.
What are the details of Brett Kavanaugh's sexual assault controversy?
In the wake of the New York Times essay, reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly revisited Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings and highlighted other allegations against him, including those from Deborah Ramirez, a fellow Yale alumna. Ramirez alleges that during a college party, Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face while they were both freshmen. The article also mentions a similar incident reported by a male Yale classmate; however, neither he nor the woman involved has spoken publicly about it, adding a layer of ambiguity to the claims.
In response to these resurfacing allegations, former President Donald Trump took to Twitter, stating, "Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can't let that happen!" Trump's remarks highlight the ongoing political divide surrounding Brett Kavanaugh's sexual assault scandal and the accusations he faces.
Pogrebin, who attended Yale with Kavanaugh, expressed her belief that Ramirez's allegations were inadequately addressed during the confirmation hearings. She argued that the Republicans, who controlled the process, showed little interest in amplifying Ramirez's story or providing her with a legitimate platform. Despite Ramirez being made available to the Senate Judiciary Committee, her allegations were ultimately deemed irrelevant by the committee, even after her legal team provided the FBI with a list of over two dozen potential witnesses who could support her account.
The renewed calls for impeachment reflect a broader concern among some Democratic leaders about Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court in light of these allegations, suggesting that the controversies surrounding his past behavior may have implications for his judicial integrity and decision-making on the bench. As the debate unfolds, it raises critical questions about accountability, the treatment of survivors of sexual misconduct, and the influence of political power in judicial appointments.
Amy Coney Barrett and People of Praise
Amy Coney Barrett served on the board of a Christian school network linked to the People of Praise community, where she was identified as a "handmaid," a leadership role for women. The group, inspired by the biblical term for Mary, later dropped the title due to its association with The Handmaid's Tale TV adaptation. Barrett lived with Kevin Ranaghan, a co-founder of People of Praise, during law school. The group, rooted in the charismatic Christian movement, holds traditional views on gender roles. Despite efforts to remove evidence of her involvement, references to Barrett can still be found in the group's publications.
What is People of Praise?
The People of Praise (POP) is a Catholic lay-apostolate, not a church, that operates based on the ecumenical teachings of Vatican II. It is an informal ministry that welcomes members from other Christian denominations and is rooted in Catholic charismatic practices. While some critics view People of Praise as a cult, it is a community of baptized Christians who affirm belief in the Nicene Creed. POP is known for its close-knit, communal lifestyle, where members are heavily involved in each other’s personal and spiritual lives. Although it has faced scrutiny, especially due to its connection with Amy Coney Barrett, it is more accurately described as a lay-run apostolate rather than a separate church or cult.
Vine and Branches - internet scrubbing
Using the Wayback machine, you can see that the magazine including Amy Coney Barrett is not available on their website now, because People of Praise deleted it.
Vine & Branches Archive from September 15 2015, showing the May 2006 edition
Vine & Branches Archive from September 27 2018, where the May 2006 edition is removed.
Amy Coney Barrett is on Page 10
Handmaids
In the People of Praise community, women leaders were once called "handmaids," inspired by the biblical term for Mary, the mother of Jesus. The group later dropped the term because of its association with The Handmaid’s Tale TV adaptation. Amy Coney Barrett, her husband, and children were listed in an undated membership directory as "handmaids" for a South Bend division. Some former members raised concerns about the control exercised by male leaders, known as "heads." These leaders influenced personal matters, like dating and finances, especially for young men seen as future leaders.
John Roberts has refused to report justice scandals, particularly pictures of justices with wealthy donors
Roberts knew about recent ethics scandals involving Supreme Court Justices, particularly Justice Alito, who is criticized for taking a luxury fishing trip with a Republican donor whose cases have appeared before the court. The report, initially broken by ProPublica, highlights a pattern of questionable behavior among justices, including Justice Thomas, who has allegedly accepted luxury trips and hidden these dealings.
The Supreme Court lacks a binding code of conduct, which raises concerns about the integrity of justices who decide on critical legal issues affecting citizens' rights. Justice Alito's claims of adhering to ethical standards are dismissed as disingenuous, suggesting he has crossed ethical boundaries rather than merely approaching them.
Justices should disclose their affiliations and recuse themselves from cases involving donors. Chief Justice Roberts failed to enforce ethical guidelines or take meaningful action in response to the scandals. Public trust in the Supreme Court is said to be at an all-time low, particularly following the controversial rulings by recent Trump appointees, which have further eroded confidence in the court's independence and integrity.
Chief Justice John Roberts, known for attempting to find a middle ground between justices, did not engage with the liberal justices in this case. Instead, the decision was a straightforward 6-3 vote along partisan lines, with the six conservative justices siding with Trump.
Roberts had previously emphasized a non-partisan approach to judicial matters but, during this case, he focused solely on negotiating within his conservative colleagues. Justice Amy Coney Barrett played a notable role, seeking some middle ground while still supporting the majority opinion. However, she diverged on specific aspects of the ruling, particularly regarding how evidence related to official acts could be used in other legal contexts.
Why do so many controversial rulings come out of the 5th Circuit?
The 5th Circuit, which hears appeals from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, had three rulings upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and eight overturned, more than any other court this term. The conservative circuit court saw its rulings on abortion medication, gun control, administrative power and social media moderation all rejected by the Supreme Court.
With a majority of judges appointed by Republican presidents, the 5th Circuit has been characterized as a "right-wing activist court," pushing an extreme agenda on issues ranging from voting rights to reproductive rights. Recent decisions include obstructing fair district maps and reconsidering protections under the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Despite some recent pro-democracy rulings, such as striking down a Jim Crow-era disenfranchisement law in Mississippi, these victories have been short-lived, with the court quickly agreeing to rehear the cases, often leading to a reversal of favorable decisions.
There is a clear need for more pro-democracy judicial appointments to counter the 5th Circuit's current trajectory, along with suggested reforms to increase accountability and protect voting rights. The ongoing challenges highlight the significant impact of judicial composition on electoral processes and minority representation.