Liberal Sup. Ct Justice Hit With Complaint

United States Supreme Court

( – In a move that raises questions about the transparency of one of the nation’s highest judicial figures, the Center for Renewing America has filed an ethics complaint against Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The conservative policy group, led by Russ Vought, a former Trump administration official, alleges that Justice Jackson “willfully” omitted necessary income disclosures related to her husband’s earnings from medical malpractice consulting.

This complaint, addressed to the Judicial Conference, suggests potential ethical lapses on the part of Justice Jackson, who has been accused of not disclosing over a decade’s worth of her husband’s income. The Center for Renewing America is pushing for a referral of these allegations to Attorney General Merrick Garland for further investigation.

Initially, during her nomination to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Jackson disclosed two clients who paid her husband more than $1,000 in 2011. However, subsequent filings reportedly failed to include further income from these consultations. The issue resurfaced with her nomination to the Supreme Court, where an amended disclosure acknowledged the omission of her husband’s consulting income in previous years.

The complaint, spearheaded by Vought, challenges the notion that Dr. Jackson’s income falls under the “self-employment” exception outlined in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. This Act mandates the disclosure of any income earned by a spouse exceeding $1,000. Vought argues that Justice Jackson’s initial disclosure, followed by a lack of subsequent reporting, indicates a deliberate non-compliance with legal requirements.

Furthermore, the complaint brings to light concerns regarding the funding of Justice Jackson’s investiture celebration at the Library of Congress, an event which featured prominent performances and guests. The funding sources for this event, which could be considered gifts under the Ethics in Government Act, were not reported in Justice Jackson’s disclosures for that year, despite her reporting other significant gifts.

These allegations, if substantiated, could suggest a pattern of non-disclosure that might obscure potential conflicts of interest and undermine the scrutiny of Justice Jackson’s recusal decisions. As the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office has not immediately responded to these claims, the unfolding of this complaint adds a new dimension to the ongoing dialogue about judicial transparency and ethics at the highest level of the U.S. judiciary.