[ad_1]
Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Photo by Allison Shelley/Getty Images)
I’m a big fan of the increased attention the mainstream media has been paying to the money Supreme Court justices are making. Even when the “revelations” are a lot of smoke for very little fire, accountability is fundamentally a positive — particularly given the near impunity the High Court has historically operated under.
So yeah, it makes sense that the Associated Press is looking into Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s income from book sales. But rather than look down on the ethics inquiry with a vague response (ahem, Clarence Thomas) or lash out with an angry response that raises more questions than it answers (looking at you on this one, Sam Alito). The Sotomayor response provides enough detail into the justice’s practices to assuage any ethics concerns about the income she’s derived from her work as an author.
The AP report focuses on the work Court staffers have done in relation to Sotomayor’s book sales, and questions the ethics behind that work. But, as the statement notes, the judicial code of ethics encourages judges to “stay connected to community activities and to engage with the public, including by writing on both legal and nonlegal subjects.” It continues by noting, “Justice Sotomayor’s Judicial Assistant has worked with the Justice’s publisher to ensure compliance with these standards, and at no time have attendees been required to buy a book in order to attend an event.”
“Schools have occasionally invited Justice Sotomayor to take part in a program in which they select a book for an entire school or a freshman class, and the Justice gives a book talk,” the statement continued. “When she is invited to participate in a book program, Chambers staff recommends the number of books based on the size of the audience so as not to disappoint attendees who may anticipate books being available at an event, and they will put colleges or universities in touch with the Justice’s publisher when asked to do so.”
Addressing the controversy of the justice failing to recuse herself in cases related to her publisher, the statement calls it an “inadvertent omission,” and notes that the conflicts check procedure has been updated to ensure that does not happen again.
See how easy it *can* be to respond to ethics issues? Somehow I imagine Justice Thomas isn’t paying attention.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
[ad_2]
