ProPublica broke a story today about Justice Samuel Alito’s breach of ethics. Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court has no ethics code. Ethics codes are for the little people, to paraphrase businesswoman Leona Helmsley, who once said that “taxes are for the little people.”
Writers at ProPublica emailed questions to Justice Alito on Friday. Instead of answering, Justice Alito took the unusual step of responding in an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal, which took the unusual step of publishing it.
The ProPublica article begins:
In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes.
Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.
In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.
Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures. By failing to disclose the private jet flight Singer provided, Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justicesto disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts.
Experts said they could not identify an instance of a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties.
“If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and leading expert on recusals. “And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?” referring to the flight on the private jet.
Justices are almost entirely left to police themselves on ethical issues, with few restrictions on what gifts they can accept. When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself.
ProPublica’s investigation sheds new light on how luxury travel has given prominent political donors — including one who has had cases before the Supreme Court — intimate access to the most powerful judges in the country. Another wealthy businessman provided expensive vacations to two members of the high court, ProPublica found. On his Alaska trip, Alito stayed at a commercial fishing lodge owned by this businessman, who was also a major conservative donor. Three years before, that same businessman flew Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, on a private jet to Alaska and paid the bill for his stay.
Such trips would be unheard of for the vast majority of federal workers, who are generally barred from taking even modest gifts.
Leonard Leo, the longtime leader of the conservative Federalist Society, attended and helped organize the Alaska fishing vacation. Leo invited Singer to join, according to a person familiar with the trip, and asked Singer if he and Alito could fly on the billionaire’s jet. Leo had recently played an important role in the justice’s confirmation to the court. Singer and the lodge owner were both major donors to Leo’s political groups.
ProPublica’s examination of Alito’s and Scalia’s travel drew on trip planning emails, Alaska fishing licenses, and interviews with dozens of people including private jet pilots, fishing guides, former high-level employees of both Singer and the lodge owner, and other guests on the trips.
ProPublica sent Alito a list of detailed questions last week, and on Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s head spokeswoman told ProPublica that Alito would not be commenting. Several hours later, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Alitoresponding to ProPublica’s questions about the trip.
Alito said that when Singer’s companies came before the court, the justice was unaware of the billionaire’s connection to the cases. He said he recalled speaking to Singer on “no more than a handful of occasions,” and they never discussed Singer’s business or issues before the court.
Alito said that he was invited to fly on Singer’s plane shortly before the trip and that the seat “would have otherwise been vacant.” He defended his failure to report the trip to the public, writing that justices “commonly interpreted” the disclosure requirements to not include “accommodations and transportation for social events.”

And who among us has not been “allowed … to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska”?
LikeLike
Yes. I took a bunch of these in exchange for making the kid’s B+ into an A-minus, back in the day. Oh, those were the days–the private airplanes, the luxury villas, the private hunting ranges, the yacht trips. All standard practice, you know. Nowhere in my contract did it say that I had to report the trips to Bali and Ibiza, and all the teachers were doing it.
LikeLike
Jon Awbrey “otherwise empty airline seats.”
Now THAT’s rich (pun intended). CBK
LikeLike
Olbermann had a good one on this today: It’s like when you go to the counter and ask for an upgrade to first class and then, after being told it’s available, demanding it be given to you for free since it would be empty anyway.
LikeLike
There’s a subtext of another story here, subtle I agree, that links to one of the issues we discuss much here; the perversions of exclusivity that come with grotesque wealth and power. I once commented that I realize how much billionaires intruded on our public aesthetic when viewing Billionaire’s Row from Central Park’s interior. The trip Alito took to go fishing cost $100,000 per because it’s a place, a natural preserve that people shouldn’t go to in the first place. But their wealth lets them jump a line that doesn’t exist. Them and well-placed politicians.
A good political cartoonist would connect this to the folly of the sub in the Atlantic. Incredible timing.
LikeLike
A good political cartoonist would connect this to the folly of the sub in the Atlantic.
Great idea. That one practically draws itself!
LikeLike
Alito was not really aware of who Paul Singer was nor Elliott Management. Of course readers of this blog are well aware of who Mr Singer is. Who his partner Dan Senor is,( beside his failed stint in Iraq) and of course his wife Campbell Brown. Yet one of the Senior members of the Taliban Court appointed by G. W. Shrub was not aware of who the largest bundler of Republican money was when he heard cases before the Court. Including the case Elliot Management vs Argentina, discussed on this blog at the time and the front pages of the Nations papers of record.
Let us put this kindly, either dementia has set in or he is a lying …
LikeLike
both
LikeLike
It’s spelled “demen$ia” in this case
LikeLike
SCOTUS has zero credibility and unlimited power.
LikeLike
Four hours ago, Salon posted an article citing Sen. Whitehouse’s question, did Alito have PR help after Pro Publica told him the magazine was going to expose the fishing trip. If so, who paid for it.
Salon describes Judicial Crisis Network’s connections to Leonard Leo and a brief filed in a SCOTUS case in which Paul Singer’s Fund was a litigant.
LikeLike
When justice can be, bought, how will the wronged be, right again. It’s the, morality, the, moral responsibilities that are in, question right now, all over the world’s, multiple, countries.
LikeLike
Justices are
almostentirely left to police themselves on ethical issues, with few restrictions on what gifts they can accept. When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself“Fixed
Supreme Court Justices are effectively kings with divine right in the US. In fact, ever since Marbury v Madison when Chief Justice Marshall unilaterally decided that the Supreme Court could rule laws unconstitutional, the Supreme Court justices have been entirely “above the law. “ They could murder someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and no one could bring them to justice because they are Just US
LikeLike
The Supreme Court will be the death of our country.
John Roberts is seeing to that.
Just wait till they rule that Trump can’t be held accountable.
But almost no one talks about Roberts’ role.
LikeLike
I think the reason the Court did the right thing in the Alabama voting rights case is because of negative public opinion due to Thomas.
LikeLike
Diane Court decisions: Without fear or favor. CBK
LikeLike
After Citizens United, none of us assume Roberts would do the right thing, unless he had an ulterior motive.
LikeLike
All Here are two links that will probably be of interest to many of you.
One about Leonard Leo’s political and well-funded overreach, the other about Pope Francis and movements at the Vatican regarding women’s participation and LGBTQ. CBK
https://truthout.org/articles/new-details-from-leonard-leos-trust-fund-expose-the-inner-workings-of-the-right/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=479d79b55b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_3_20_2023_13_41_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-479d79b55b-652229581&mc_cid=479d79b55b&mc_eid=50a395fa52
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-06-20/vatican-document-concrete-steps-women-lgbtq-participation?utm_id=102033&sfmc_id=639504
LikeLike
Roberts Rules of Order
The Supremes can do no wrong
The Supremes answer to no one (except Jesus Christ and the Pope)
Trump did nothing wrong
LikeLike
… and accepting gifts from friends is not even alito bit out of (fishing) line
LikeLike
I think we should encourage these billionaires to take inner city kids on field trips to their lavish play pens. Then they could get tax breaks and claim these ventures as part of their philanthropic enterprise. What we are seeing is members of the the Supreme Court who think they are owed such gifts because they make the sacrifice of being paid $300,000 a year to work for the government.
LikeLike