Senate Judiciary Democrats wrote a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts demanding Samuel Alito recuse himself from future cases involving tax and ethics issues after the justice told Congress to stay out of the court’s business. 

‘Congress did not create the Supreme Court,’ Alito told the Wall Street Journal in an interview. ‘I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.’ 

The Senate Democrats accused the conservative justice of violating the existing ethics rules with the interview. 

Congressional Democrats advanced legislation to impose new ethics rules after a series of reports of justices accepting lavish vacations and other perks that present potential conflicts of interest. 

Dick Durbin, chair of the Judiciary Committee, wrote that Alito had violated the court’s Statement on Ethics and Principals by ‘by opining on the constitutionality of legislation under consideration by the U.S. Senate’ Alito likely violated a Statement of Ethics the court released in April by ‘creating an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public.’

The Democrats also noted that one of the Wall Street Journal interviewers, David Rivkin, is representing the plaintiffs in a tax case to be heard next term before the Supreme Court – Moore v. United States.   

‘Mr. Rivkin’s access to Justice Alito and efforts to help Justice Alito air his personal grievances could cast doubt on Justice Alito’s ability to fairly discharge his duties in a case in which Mr. Rivkin represents one of the parties,’ Durbin said, arguing Alito should not decide tax cases. 

But Roberts does not have the authority to order Alito to recuse under current rules – Alito can only choose to recuse himself. 

The Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill last month that would force the Supreme Court to adopt a stronger ethics policy. 

Last month Alito went to war with ProPublica after the publication released a report revealing the justice enjoyed a luxury fishing expedition to Alaska, likely worth tens of thousands of dollars, courtesy of a Republican megadonor. 

Alito did not recuse himself from cases involving the billionaire’s companies on multiple occasions when they later came before the court.

Rather than respond to investigative news site ProPublica when its reporters asked him for comment, Alito chose to go on the attack.

On Tuesday evening, he slammed the not-yet-published report as ‘misleading’ with his own lawyerly account of the trip, reflecting what appears to be growing anger among justices that their integrity is being questioned.

‘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,’ he wrote in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal.

‘Neither charge is valid.’

Meanwhile, a string of revelations about ties between Justice Clarence Thomas and a Texas billionaire has coincided with a steep drop in public confidence in the nation’s top court.

Hours after Alito’s rebuttal had posted on Tuesday evening, ProPublica published its scoop,

It includes a photograph of a beaming Alito holding a monster King Salmon beside billionaire Singer during their July 2008 trip.

The hedge fund manager flew the justice to Alaska on a private jet – a trip that could have cost as much as $100,000 if Alito had paid for it himself, the report says.

He stayed at at a commercial fishing lodge owned by another prominent businessman. Three years earlier that same figure hosted Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016.

ProPublica said its reporting of Alito and Scalia’s travel included examination of 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.

And it said Alito did not report the trip on his annual disclosure.

During the trip, ProPublica said the group flew on one of the lodge’s planes to a waterfall in Katmai National Park. That evening they dined on Alaskan king crab legs or Kobe filet.

At the final dinner, a guest bragged that they were drinking $1000 bottles of wine, according to a guide.

In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund was involved in multiple legal wrangles including at least 10 that ended up at the Supreme Court.

In 2014, he won a decade-long battle with Argentina when the court voted 7-1 in his favor, winning $2.4 billion in the process. Scalia did not remove himself from the case, voting with majority.

In his pre-emptive response, Alito insisted he had not duty to recuse himself.

‘My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups,’ he wrote.

‘On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the court.’

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republican efforts to radically reshape how elections are conducted across the country by giving state legislatures almost unchecked powers to redraw congressional maps and set electoral rules.

The justices voted 6-3 to uphold a decision made by North Carolina’s top court, saying it had not overstepped its authority in striking down a new map of congressional districts as overly partisan.

Republican lawmakers essentially asked the nation’s highest court to allow state legislatures ultimate authority, unchecked by state courts, in federal elections.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: ‘State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause.’ 

‘But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review.’

A different ruling could have had a major impact on the 2024 elections.

And it comes at a time when the role of partisan lawmakers in state elections is under intense scrutiny because of the way former President Donald Trump and his allies attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 and influence the 2022 midterms. 

The White House welcomed the decision.

‘We’re pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the extreme legal theory presented in this case, which would have interfered with state governments, which would have opened the door for politicians to undermine the will of the people and would have threatened the freedom of all Americans to have their voices heard at the ballot box,’ said Olivia Dalton, principal deputy press secretary.

The case before the Supreme Court relied on the ‘independent legislature theory. It is based on a hardline reading of the Constitution’s Clause, which states: ‘The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.’

Adherents argue that means that courts, governors or independent commissions cannot interfere in a legislature’s authority over elections, even if lawmakers gerrymander election maps or violate protections enshrined in state constitutions. 

Four of the Supreme Court’s justices have issued opinions suggesting some support for the controversial theory.

In North Carolina, the state supreme court struck down Republicans’ proposed map in February last year.

Of 14 Congressional districts, the GOP would have been in control of all but three. 

The Tar Heel state’s highest court voted 4-3 along party lines that the map was ‘unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt’ in its partisan advantage.

‘Achieving partisan advantage incommensurate with a political party’s level of statewide voter support is neither a compelling nor a legitimate governmental interest,’ the court ruled.

Instead, the midterm elections were conducted with a court-drawn map, designed to split support evenly.

Republican leaders in the legislature made their case to justices in December, arguing that the state supreme court had overstepped its authority. 

At the time, Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, told the Associated Press that ‘this case could profoundly alter the balance of power in states and prevent state courts and agencies from providing protections for people’s right to vote.’

‘There’s a wide range of ways the court could rule on this. Taken to its extreme, it would be a radical reworking of our system of running elections,’ he said. 

Former President Barack Obama also welcomed the decision.

‘This ruling rejects the far-right theory that threatened to undermine our democracy, and makes clear that courts can continue defending voters’ rights — in North Carolina and in every state,’ he tweeted.

Supreme Court says Louisiana’s voting maps must be redrawn to add ANOTHER district where majority of residents are black: State was accused of violating election laws by diluting African-American vote

• The ruling was handed down with no dissenting opinions
• It follows a similar decision against the state of Alabama 
• Lower courts had voiced concerns that Black voting power had been illegally diluted

By James Franey, Senior U.S. Political Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Published: 11:34 EDT, 26 June 2023 | Updated: 13:22 EDT, 26 June 2023

Supreme Court will hear Republicans’ bid to increase state authority over election laws in case with massive implications for 2024

• The case, Moore v. Harper, deals with North Carolina’s Congressional map
• Multiple state courts have struck down the Republican legislature’s redistricting proposal, which would give their party control over 11 of 14 House seats
• The GOP is arguing that striking down the map is a violation of a Constitutional provision that gives legislatures unilateral authority over state election laws 
• It’s a legal theory known as Independent State Legislature Doctrine
• The Supreme Court has struck down arguments using the theory in the past
• It has the potential to boost the power of Republican-led legislatures in battleground states like Michigan ahead of the next presidential race

By Elizabeth Elkind, Politics Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Published: 16:31 EDT, 30 June 2022 | Updated: 17:23 EDT, 30 June 2022

Supreme Court in shock decision as justices vote 5-4 to strike down Republican-drawn Alabama congressional districts because they discriminated against black voters

By Morgan Phillips, Politics Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Published: 14:03 EDT, 8 June 2023 | Updated: 14:03 EDT, 8 June 2023

Advertisement

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said Sunday that attempts by the Supreme Court to block gun control could trigger a ‘popular revolt.’

He made his comments as President Joe Biden accused Republicans of caring more about gunmakers than their constituents as he again called on Congress to pass gun control legislation.

Democrats stepped up their arguments that a majority of Americans back tougher firearm regulation on the day that Buffalo, New York, was marking the anniversary of a racist gun attack that killed 10 people.

‘If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy,’ said Murphy, of Connecticut.

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that a federal law preventing the sale of guns to 18- to 20-year-olds was unconstitutional. 

Any further action could make it all the way to the Supreme Court, which has lost the confidence of a swath of Americans and faces fresh ethics allegations against justices.

‘A court that’s already pretty illegitimate, is going to be in full crisis mode,’ Murphy added on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’

He is an outspoken advocate of gun control and his words may be seen as a threat. 

Meanwhile, Biden marked the anniversary of the Buffalo mass shooting with an impassioned call to ban assault weapons and require gun owners to securely their firearms.

‘The majority of Americans – even the majority of gun owners – want Congress to take some commonsense action to reduce gun violence,’ he wrote in an op-ed published by USA Today.

‘But too many congressional Republicans are doing the bidding of gun manufacturers instead of their constituents.’

The city of Buffalo is marking the attack with a moment of silence to remember the 10 people killed when a gunman targeted black people at a supermarket.

It will be followed by bells tolling. 

‘The racially motivated mass shooting shook our community to its core. It was the day the unthinkable happened,’ Mayor Byron Brown said in announcing plans for the commemoration.

Biden pointed out the murders were followed 10 days later by an attack on a school in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two teachers were shot dead.

‘Jill and I visited both communities, spending hours with hundreds of family members who lost pieces of their soul and whose lives will never be the same,’ he wrote. 

‘They had one message for all of us: Do something. For God’s sake, do something.’

In their aftermath, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It strengthens firearms background checks for young people and expands the use of red flag laws.

But more is needed, wrote Biden, pointing out that the toll since Buffalo last year included 650 mass shootings and more than 40,000 deaths due to gun violence.

‘Congress must act, including by banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring gun owners to securely store their firearms, requiring background checks for all gun sales, and repealing gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability,’ he wrote. 

‘We also need more governors and state legislators to take these steps.’

The White House sent out a fact sheet describing actions taken by the Biden administration.

They include enhanced background checks, particularly for people under the age of 21; adding dating relationship status in domestic abuse cases to prevent guns falling into the hands of people with a history of abuse; and increased prosecutions over firearms trafficking and purchases of weapons for people banned from buying a gun.