An ethics complaint filed last month against Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is under review by the Committee on Financial Disclosures in the Judicial Conference.
Last month, the Center for Renewing America said Jackson, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in fulfillment of President Joe Biden’s promise to name a black woman to the court, intentionally did not disclose her husband’s malpractice consulting income.
“We are hopeful that the Judicial Conference takes a long, hard look at the ethics concerns surrounding Justice Jackson and ensures there is not a double standard for justices,” Center for Renewing America President Russ Vought said in a statement to Fox News.
“The left has made it a sport to attack the character of conservative Supreme Court justices. They’ve turned a blind eye to actual indiscretions and appearances of corruption actively happening,” he said, referring to attacks against Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The Judicial Conference said on its website that it “serves as the policymaking body for the federal courts.”
The Center for Renewing America’s complaint claimed Jackson “appears to have willfully failed to disclose required information regarding her husband’s medical malpractice consulting income for over a decade.”
The complaint noted that “given the repeated omissions of this information for several years, it is appropriate to refer Justice Jackson to the United States Attorney General.”
The complaint to the Judicial Conference also said, “there is reason to believe that Justice Jackson may have failed to report the private funding sources of her massive investiture celebration at the Library of Congress in her most recent financial disclosure.”
“Given the need to ensure the equal application of the law and the tendency of these violations to create serious recusal issues and conflicts of interest, the Conference’s prompt attention is of paramount public importance,” the letter said.
Do you support Clarence Thomas?
The complaint said that Jackson followed the rules during her nomination to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia when she reported two of her husband’s clients paid him more than $1,000 in 2011.
“On her subsequent filings, however, Justice Jackson repeatedly failed to disclose that her husband received income from medical malpractice consulting fees. We know this by Justice Jackson’s own admission in her amended disclosure form for 2020, filed when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, that ‘some of my previously filed reports inadvertently omitted’ her husband’s income from ‘consulting on medical malpractice cases,’” the complaint said.
The complaint said that “further demonstrating willfulness,” Jackson is skimming over years she did not list her husband’s consulting income and only referred to omitting it in a 2020 form filed in 2022, the year she was appointed to the Supreme Court.
“Apart from being willful and illegal, Justice Jackson’s omission creates serious recusal issues. The nature of her husband’s work on legal medical malpractice consultation inherently creates significant conflicts of interest about which parties and the public are entitled to know,” the letter said.
The letter said because Jackson did not provide the required information “the public and parties are left without the opportunity to ensure that she has no conflict of interest in a particular case.”
“By voting on cases or petitions involving or materially affecting the interests of her husband’s clients or counsel, Justice Jackson shields potential conflicts of interests and creates an appearance of impropriety,” the complaint said.
“Justice Jackson’s willful refusal to disclose her husband’s medical malpractice consulting income on several reports undermine the text and fundamental purpose of the ethics laws and calls into doubt her ability to discharge her duties impartially. The Conference should refer her to the Attorney General for an official investigation into this matter,” the letter said.
The complaint noted that although a “massive invitation-only celebration” when Jackson had her investiture to the court was privately funded, Jackson never reported it on her most recent disclosure form.
The letter said that “her failure to disclose such private funding is clearly a willful omission,” noting that Jackson reported some post-investiture gifts including “$6,580 in designer clothes from Vogue Magazine for a photoshoot.”
The complaint said that as long as no one knows who paid for her celebration, “it becomes impossible to detect conflicts of interest arising from this event, shielding Justice Jackson’s recusal decisions from public scrutiny,” adding, “Justice Jackson’s potential omission seriously undermines public trust in the courts.”
“Justice Jackson has demonstrated a disturbing trend of not reporting material sources of income and gifts,” the complaint said to sum up the center’s concerns.
