Due to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ egregious acceptance and nondisclosure of lavish trips paid by private donors, there is now a bright, bright spotlight on trips taken by all justices when court’s out of session.
Such scrutiny is needed, as the high court has too few ethics rules putting guardrails on what they accept and disclose to the public. That opens the door very widely to rich sponsors inviting justices to live high on the hog, gaining rarefied access to and influence with these legal eagles who decide the most-impactful cases in America.
But let’s be clear: Thomas taking a $500,000 junket to Indonesia in 2019 from billionaire businessman and GOP donor Harlan Crow, is a far cry from justices on the academic lecture circuit, such as the University of Hawaii law school’s Jurist-In-Residence program. Over the years, UH has hosted Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.
And that’s a good thing for law students here, as well as the public, to hear from the top legal minds in the country. Teaching, lecturing and sharing legal insights are bona fide ways for justices to make contact with the American people out of session.
And it’s permissible, so long as their earning is less than the court’s roughly $30,000 cap on outside income. Responding to questions from the Associated Press, the Supreme Court noted the $30,000 figure and added that “teaching must be at an accredited educational institution or continuing legal educational program and must be approved in advance by the Chief Justice (or by the Associate Justices if it involves teaching by the Chief Justice).”
Yes, these all-expenses-paid trips attract the justices here with first-class airfare, top hotels and considerable “down time” in paradise. Perks.
But, as University of Hawaii spokesman Dan Meisenzahl reasonably noted, Hawaii is so isolated from the U.S. mainland that offering first-rate accommodations to the justices is one way to ensure they’ll make the trip.
As evidence of how in-demand the justices are — plus the lucrative and influential draw of their out-of-court appearances — the AP looked beyond public institutions, and tried contacting 100-plus private schools, organizations and charities where the justices spoke. Most declined to provide details, as these institutions are not subject to public records laws.
It is a positive opportunity for law students and the public — not just the monied friends — to have access to justices in academic settings. But it is time for the Supreme Court to get stricter on required public disclosures on engagements. The lecture circuit, clearly, is a lucrative one for the justices; the public deserves much more transparency on just how much money swirls on this circuit — and who’s funding it.
