The US supreme court’s alleged ethics issues are worse than you probably realize | Moira Donegan

It was a short letter. John Roberts, chief justice of the US supreme court, was brief in his missive to Democratic senator Dick Durbin, who chairs the Senate judiciary committee. Citing "separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence", Roberts declined to appear before the committee to discuss disturbing recent revelations of ethics violations at the court.

Congress is meant to exert checks on judicial power - to investigate or even impeach judges who abuse their office or interpret the law in ways that violate its spirit, and to affirm that the elected branches will hold more sway over policy than the appointed one. But the chief justice's show of indifference to congressional oversight authority reflects a new reality: that there are now effectively no checks on the power of the court - at least none that Democrats have the political will to use - and that the justices can be assured that they will face no repercussions even if they act in flagrant violation of ethical standards. It seems that they intend to.

The committee summoned Roberts to testify because it appears that he's not exactly running a tight ship. On 6 April, an investigation by ProPublica found that Justice Clarence Thomas had, over decades, accepted millions of dollars' worth of private plane flights, "superyacht" trips and luxury vacations from the Texas billionaire and conservative megadonor Harlan Crow - and that, in alleged violation of federal ethics law, he had not disclosed almost any of it.

Subsequent reporting revealed that Crow had in fact bought Thomas's childhood home in Savannah, Georgia, where the justice's elderly mother still lives, along with several plots on the block. After paying Thomas for the real estate, the billionaire cleared local blight, made significant renovations to the house and allowed Thomas's mother to continue living there, rent-free.

None of those transactions had been detailed on Thomas's ethics forms, either. In addition to the soft influence Crow would have been able to buy with his extensive largesse, the billionaire's generous gifts also seem to have created a direct conflict of interest for Justice Thomas: Crow's firm had business before the US supreme court at least once, and Thomas did not recuse himself from the case.

It is not Thomas's first time in ethical hot water. He was famously accused of sexual harassment by multiple women, including Anita Hill, during his time in the Reagan administration as head of the employee-rights protection watchdog, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He has been accused of having perjured himself in his subsequent testimony about his behavior toward Hill at his confirmation hearings.

During his long tenure on the court, he has repeatedly had trouble filling out his financial disclosure forms correctly. Once, he failed to report more than half a million dollars in income that his wife, the conservative activist Ginni Thomas, received from the rightwing Heritage Foundation. He said at the time that he had misunderstood the forms. That was also his excuse regarding Harlan Crow's largesse.

Thomas claims that he was advised that he did not have to report "hospitality". It is a loophole in the ethics code that is meant to relieve judges of having to report, say, barbecue dinners at the homes of their neighbors - not, as Thomas claims he took it to mean, luxury yacht tours of Indonesia.

Although Thomas may be uniquely prolific in his alleged ethical violations, the problem isn't unique to him. Politico revealed this week that just nine days after his confirmation to the US supreme court in April 2017, Justice Neil Gorsuch sold a log cabin in Colorado to Brian Duffy, the chief executive of the prominent law firm Greenberg Traurig. Before Gorsuch's confirmation, the justice and the other co-owners of the home had tried for two years to sell it, without success.

Since the sale, Duffy's firm has had business before the court at least 22 times. Gorsuch did disclose the income from the sale on financial disclosure forms, but failed to mention that the buyer was a big shot at one of the country's largest law firms who would regularly bring cases before Gorsuch at his new job.

It's certainly possible that Duffy simply liked the house, and that the convenient timing of his purchase so soon after Gorsuch's confirmation to the court was a mere coincidence. And it seems reasonable to believe Thomas and Crow when they say that they are sincere friends, if less reasonable to believe Thomas when he claims that he misunderstood his disclosure obligations. But corruption need not be as vulgar and direct as a quid pro quo: it can be the subtle machinations of influence and sympathy that occur in these relationships, inflected both by money and by closeness, that lead the justices to see cases as they otherwise wouldn't, or act in ways contrary to the integrity of their office and the interests of the law.

Bad intent by the justices need not be present for the mere appearance of corruption to have a corrosive effect on the rule of law, and both Gorsuch and Thomas have allowed a quite severe appearance of corruption to attach itself to the court. Both have claimed that they are such intelligent and gifted legal minds that they should be given lifelong appointments of unparalleled power, and also that they have made innocent mistakes on legal forms that they are too dumb to understand.

The claim strains credulity. What it looks like, to the American people who have to live under the laws that the supreme court shapes, is that Thomas has long been living lavishly on the dime of a rightwing billionaire who wants rightwing rulings, and that Gorsuch conveniently managed to sell a house he didn't want at the precise moment when he became important enough to be worth bribing.

The chief justice doesn't seem very worried about this appearance of impropriety. In light of these alarming ethics concerns, Roberts' curt rejection of the committee's invitation to testify speaks to an evident indifference to ethical standards, or a contempt for the oversight powers of the nominally coequal branches. Ironically enough, his nonchalance has made the reality even more plain than it was before: the court will not police itself. The other branches need to show the justices their place.