Justice Samuel Alito accepted luxury vacation from billionaire with cases before Supreme Court: Report
Cami Mondeaux
Video Embed
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito reportedly accepted a luxury fishing vacation from a hedge fund billionaire but failed to disclose the trip despite the man later appearing before the Supreme Court to press the justices to rule in his favor on a number of cases.
Hours before the report was released, Alito wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, presumably an attempt to get ahead of accusations of ethics violations, which were seized upon by congressional Democrats when ProPublica wrote similar stories about Justice Clarence Thomas.
BIDEN’S CLIMATE AGENDA DREAMS COLLIDE WITH MILITARY REALITIES
Billionaire Paul Singer has appeared before the Supreme Court at least 10 times for cases related to his hedge funds and that were heavily covered by the media and legal community. In 2014, the court overwhelmingly ruled in favor of Singer between his hedge fund and the country of Argentina, resolving a decadelong dispute that awarded the fund $2.4 billion.
Alito ruled with the 7-1 majority on that case, failing to recuse himself despite accepting a luxury vacation from Singer just six years prior, according to ProPublica. Going even further, the justice failed to disclose the trip altogether — violating the court’s ethics standards to report gifts.
Alito reportedly traveled with the billionaire to a luxury fishing lodge in remote Alaska during the summer of 2008. Such a vacation would typically cost about $1,000 a day for lodging and more than $100,000 in expenses just to travel one day.
None of those expenses were included in Alito’s 2008 financial disclosure statements, according to the outlet.
Alito denied any wrongdoing, writing in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that the reporting by ProPublica was meant to “mislead” readers. The piece was published before ProPublica’s reporting was made public as the justice sought to get ahead of the allegations.
Reporters at ProPublica requested comment from Alito for their piece, setting a deadline for noon on Tuesday. Instead, the justice declined to comment — running the op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal just five hours before the story was published.
“ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report,” Alito wrote. “Neither charge is valid.”
Alito argued he had no knowledge of Singer’s connection to the entities involved in the cases he ruled on, but even if he had, he claimed that “recusal would not have been required or appropriate.” Instead, Alito described the luxury vacation as an “exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago,” which he said excused him from needing to report it.
“On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court,” he wrote.
The latest revelation comes as congressional Democrats are seeking to crack down on the ethics standards of the Supreme Court after it was reported last month that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose several luxury vacations that were paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow.
Current rules require justices to disclose all gifts that exceed $415, but the standards around gifts such as travel or lodging remain unclear.
The Judicial Conference recently updated guidelines to require justices and other federal judges to report gifts in more detail, including things such as rides on private jets or free stays at a hotel.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Alito argued that before the updated guidelines were implemented, justices often interpreted the rules to mean gifts given out of hospitality, such as accommodations or transportation to social events, were not “reportable gifts.”
“The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so I followed what I understood to be standard practice,” he wrote. “I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer. Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me.”