Corruption

The Supreme Court announced this week that it will begin using conflict-of-interest detection software to identify when justices should recuse themselves from cases. Parties filing before the Court will now be required to list stock ticker symbols in their filings to help the software flag potential conflicts. It sounds like progress. It isn’t—or at least, it isn’t nearly enough. The announcement is the latest example of the Court responding to legitimate ethics crises with the minimum possible action: a technical workaround that avoids confronting the actual problem. The actual problem is that two Supreme Court justices are still holding individual company stocks while deciding cases that affect American corporations, their shareholders, and the broader economy. ...

Two weeks after Donald Trump’s 2024 re-election, Chief Justice John Roberts summoned Supreme Court employees to a grand conference room and made them sign nondisclosure agreements threatening legal action if they revealed what happens behind the Court’s closed doors. This wasn’t a response to national security concerns. It was a response to the American public learning the truth about how the Court operates. According to a new report from The New York Times, the Supreme Court has converted what was once an informal expectation of confidentiality into formal legal contracts—complete with threats of litigation. The timing and circumstances reveal everything wrong with the Court’s approach to accountability. ...

Conservative media is questioning whether a federal judge should recuse himself from a case because he once donated to a legal aid nonprofit. Meanwhile, Supreme Court justices have accepted millions in undisclosed gifts from billionaires with cases before the Court—and faced no consequences. The disparity reveals everything wrong with our current approach to judicial ethics. The “Scandal” That Isn’t Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota is facing scrutiny for threatening to hold ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons in contempt of court. The case involves whether an Ecuadoran national detained by ICE should have received a bond hearing within seven days. ...

The Supreme Court’s continued delay in ruling on the legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) isn’t just about trade policy—it’s a troubling sign of how willing this Court may be to hand unchecked power to the executive branch. The Case That Should Be Simple The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025, in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump and a companion case. The legal question is straightforward: Did Congress authorize the President to impose tariffs under IEEPA, a law designed for national security emergencies? ...

When Access Journalism Becomes Propaganda CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford recently declared that the Supreme Court corruption narrative is “dangerous” and “patently false”. Her defense of Justices Thomas and Alito: the Court is simply “conservative,” and criticism of its decisions doesn’t equal corruption. This is gaslighting disguised as legal analysis. ...

Two Justices, Millions in Gifts, Zero Consequences In December 2024, after 20 months of investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a devastating 95-page report documenting what it called an “ethical crisis at the Supreme Court.” The findings were damning: Justice Clarence Thomas “accepted lavish gifts from billionaires with business before the court for almost his entire tenure as a justice,” with gifts of a “number, value, and extravagance” that have “no comparison in modern American history.” ...

A Million-Dollar Fast Track to Bypass Congress President Trump launched his “Gold Card” visa program this week, offering foreign nationals expedited permanent residency for a $1 million “gift” to the Department of Commerce—or $2 million if sponsored by a corporation. The program raises a fundamental constitutional question: Can a president simply bypass Congress to rewrite immigration law if you have enough money to pay? ...

A Justice Who Believes He’s Above Accountability Justice Samuel Alito presents himself as a principled originalist who respects precedent and follows the highest ethical standards. The reality is starkly different. Alito accepted luxury trips worth over $100,000 from a billionaire who later had cases before the Court—and didn’t disclose them. He flew insurrection flags at his homes and refused to recuse from January 6 cases. He told a Senator during confirmation hearings that precedent was “settled,” then systematically dismantled 50 years of abortion rights. He secretly recorded telling an activist that America must “return to a place of godliness.” ...

A Supreme Court Justice for Sale For over 20 years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury gifts from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow valued at more than $4.75 million. Private jet trips across the globe. Lavish yacht vacations. A quarter-million-dollar RV he never fully paid for. Private school tuition for a family member. Real estate deals. And he disclosed almost none of it. ...

When Words Ring Hollow Chief Justice John Roberts released his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary, and it’s a remarkable document—not for what it says, but for what it so carefully avoids saying. Roberts chose to focus on Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and the Declaration of Independence, waxing eloquent about America’s founding principles and the judiciary’s sacred duty to decide cases “faithfully and impartially.” It’s a beautiful sentiment. It’s also utterly disconnected from the reality of the Supreme Court he leads. ...