8/8/2023 0 Comments Forbes newsletters sign inThis new story comes after an April report from ProPublica that revealed a 20-year relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas and Republican billionaire donor Harlan Crow. 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." The latest report follows others from ProPublica on Supreme Court justices These experts also maintain Alito should have disclosed his stay at the lodge since it wasn't one individual's vacation home, according to ProPublica.Īlito wrote in his op-ed that "justices commonly interpreted this discussion of 'hospitality' to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts. The law does clearly establish a requirement for justices to disclose gifts of flights on a private jet, according to the publication's interviews with ethics law experts. ProPublica writes that: "The law has a 'personal hospitality' exemption: If someone hosts a justice on their own property, free 'food, lodging, or entertainment' don't always have to be disclosed." Previously it was for gifts worth $415 or more. As of 2023, they must report gifts worth more than $480. A luxury trip could mark multiple violations.Īnd further, the nine Supreme Court justices, as thousands of other government workers, are required to file financial disclosures. The penalty for offenses that occurred from 2007 to 2015 is $50,000. He adds he was unaware of Singer's connection to the entities involved in the cases brought before the court and even if he had, "recusal would not have been required or appropriate."Īlito also says he wasn't obligated to list items as gifts on his 2008 Financial disclosure report, as ProPublica claims.įederal law states that anyone who "knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information required by filers of public reports" faces a penalty of more than $70,000 per offense committed after Nov. Instead he took an unusual step to publish a preemptive op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, refuting the allegations and defending himself saying, "I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites." Alito voted with the 7-1 majority, along with the court's liberals, in favor of Singer - netting his hedge fund, Elliott Management, $2.4 billion, the publication found.Īlito didn't respond to ProPublica's questions directly. This included a case from 2014 involving a dispute between Singer's hedge fund and the country of Argentina. ProPublica says that after this trip, Singer's hedge fund brought at least 10 cases to the high court. Justice Samuel Alito did not disclose a luxury trip he took in 2008 with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer nor did he recuse himself from cases that the businessman later had in front of the Supreme Court, a new report from ProPublica alleges. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito sits for a group portrait the Supreme Court building in Washington on Oct.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |