Millions of federal workers across the U.S. face stricter ethics requirements than those faced by Supreme Court justices, a new report finds, revealing the large insufficiencies in oversight regarding nine of the most powerful individuals in the country.
A Bloomberg analysis published this week reveals that at least 2 million U.S. federal workers, of which there are roughly 2.9 million in total, are subject to higher standards of ethics than the Supreme Court.
If a federal employee does receive a gift from a friend or relative, it needs to be approved or disclosed. Receiving gifts from others isn’t allowed for most government employees, the report said, even if the gift is worth just above $20 in value — much less the hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of gifts that Justice Clarence Thomas has received from conservative billionaire Harlan Crow.
In other words, even the least empowered people in the federal government, whose level of influence doesn’t come close to touching that of even a single Supreme Court justice, is subject to higher scrutiny than someone like Thomas or Chief Justice John Roberts.
Even a low-ranked, entry-level worker “in the bowels of some executive branch department is subject to stricter ethics laws and rules than the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and that’s a travesty,” Walter Shaub, senior ethics fellow at Project on Government Oversight and former head of the Office of Government Ethics, told Bloomberg. “That’s ethics standing on its head.”
Federal employees, including people like members of Congress, are all technically subject to the same law, but face different rules or punishments based on where they work. On the other hand, while the Supreme Court has a code of ethics, the code is not legally binding.
“Members of Congress can be voted out of office. Executive branch workers face oversight ethics officers,” wrote Bloomberg’s David Voreacos. “Supreme Court justices operate with no outside oversight.”
Voreacos listed a number of scenarios that are either off limits for federal employees or require prior ethics clearance, but hold no consequences for a Supreme Court justice. Accepting $200 concert tickets from a trade group or letting a lobbyist pay $125 of a fee to play on a private golf course, for instance, are no-gos for a member of Congress, a Pentagon contracting officer, a Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer, or even a federal trial judge, the publication listed.
Meanwhile, accepting an invitation to travel on a friend’s private jet for a hunting trip in the states — similar to Thomas’s trips on Harlan Crow’s jet or the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s habit of going on hunting trips paid for by private donors — is technically allowed, but needs to be approved, within certain guidelines, or must be disclosed.
Thomas, on the other hand, has openly admitted that he hasn’t disclosed the lavish gifts he’s received from Crow, and yet has not faced any punishment.
With heightened scrutiny of the financial relationships around the embattled Thomas — who has been embroiled in multiple scandals in the last few years — the release of Supreme Court justices’ annual financial disclosures on Wednesday was highly anticipated. But, unlike those of the majority of the rest of the Court, Thomas’s disclosures have not yet been released because he has asked for an extension, potentially granting him more cover for the yet-unspecified time when he does file his forms.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.