Justice Neil Gorsuch sold $2m property to owner of legal firm with cases before Supreme Court
Growing discontent about Court’s lax ethical guardrails has yet to be seriously addressed by justices
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Another justice of the US Supreme Court is now under scrutiny for their ethical disclosures after it was revealed that they made hundreds of thousands of dollars in a property sale that involved the owner of a prominent legal firm with business before the court.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was revealed by Politico this week to have sold a property, along with other associates of an LLC formed for the purpose of managing the property, for nearly $2m to the chief executive of Greenburg Taurig, a firm which since the transaction has represented nearly two dozen clients before the high court. On subsequent financial disclosure forms where the sale was listed, Mr Gorsuch apparently did not identify Greenburg Taurig CEO Brian Duffy as the buyer.
The decision by Mr Gorsuch to obscure that information is not illegal, thanks to the comparatively light financial disclosure requirements which the Supreme Court operates under. But it’s more fuel for the argument that judges on the Supreme Court are not avoiding basic conflicts of interest to which elected officials in other branches of government regularly adhere.
The Supreme Court has largely refused to comment on the various ethical entanglements dug up by reporters in recent weeks; this latest example is no exception, with the Court ignoring Politico’s request for a response on Tuesday.
Chief Justice John Roberts was even asked recently by the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about the Court’s ethical guidelines, as the issue has gained steam thanks to a steady drip-drip of reporting on the issue and the outrightrefusal of the justices to take the matter seriously; Mr Roberts declined to testify in a letter Senator Dick Durbin on Tuesday. Mr Durbin responded by calling on Congress to pass legislation that would require the Supreme Court to adopt a stronger, enforceable code of ethics.
The Supreme Court has steadily lost favour with Americans in recent years, and polling indicates that a majority believes that the court’s justices let their own political beliefs affect their decision-making. Democrats in particular have seethed at the court’s conservative supermajority for the recent overturn of Roe v Wade, which ended federal protections for abortion rights that had existed for decades.
Justice Clarence Thomas has also been at the centre of questions about his behaviour thanks to twin controversies surrounding his own acceptance of lavish gifts from a wealthy conservative donor and his wife Ginni Thomas’s participation in the effort to overturn the legal results of the 2020 presidential election.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments