On November 30, the committee subpoenaed Leo and Texas billionaire Harlan Crowe along party lines after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reportedly said: It was decided to do so. Samuel A. Alito received free luxury travel and gifts from Crowe, Leo, and conservative donor Robin Arkley II, but did not disclose.
Mr. Crow did not receive a subpoena Thursday, his spokesman Michael Zona told the Post.
In a statement to the Post, Durbin said subpoenaing Leo was a necessary step.
“Since July 2023, Leonard Leo has completely refused to cooperate with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s legitimate oversight requests,” Durbin said. “His open defiance left the committee with no choice but to proceed with mandatory proceedings. I therefore issued a subpoena to Mr. Leo.”
“Mr. Leo has played a central role in the ethics crisis plaguing the Supreme Court, and unlike other recipients of requests for information on this issue, he has done nothing but obstruct the committee. This subpoena is a direct result of Mr. Leo’s own actions and choices,” Durbin continued.
The commission did not respond to a request for comment on why only Leo received a subpoena. And when asked why it took so long between the vote and Leo’s subpoena, Durbin’s office declined to expand beyond its initial statement.
Leo’s attorney, David B. Rivkin, said in a letter to Durbin Thursday that Leo would not respond to the committee’s “unlawful and politically motivated subpoena.”
Leo’s veto would force Democrats to vote in the Senate if they want to enforce the subpoena in court, but breaking the filibuster would require 60 votes, making it nearly impossible in a narrow chamber. It is a great mission.
The November vote on the subpoenas for Mr. Leo and Mr. Crow came two weeks after the Supreme Court announced that for the first time judges would be subject to a broad code of conduct that promotes “honesty and impartiality.” The high court’s new ethics rules were hailed by some as a positive step. But legal ethics experts criticized the lack of a process for dealing with complaints that judges have violated standards, and that individual judges were given too much discretion in deciding to abstain. .
At a November hearing, Democratic senators said the provision didn’t go far enough and that they would need to use subpoenas to seek more information from Mr. Crow and Mr. Leo to inform them of the proposed bill. Ta.
“Without an enforcement mechanism, this code of conduct, while a step in a positive direction, will not be enough to restore public confidence in the court,” Durbin said in his prepared opening statement. “For this reason, Congressional action remains appropriate and necessary. The committee’s investigation into the court’s ethical crisis, and these subpoenas in particular, is an important part of the legislative effort to establish an effective code of conduct. be.”
Republicans on the committee have criticized the subpoena effort as a political attempt to discredit the high court’s conservative majority.
The commission came after ProPublica revealed in April that Mr. Thomas had failed to disclose in his annual report the free luxury vacations and private jet trips he received from his longtime friend Mr. Crowe. Democratic lawmakers have launched an investigation into the judge’s relationship with his private sponsor. Thomas also initially reported that Crowe had purchased three properties from Thomas and his relatives, and that Crowe had paid boarding school tuition for Thomas’ great-nephew, over whom Thomas had legal custody. There wasn’t.
ProPublica also revealed that Leo arranged for Alito to take a luxury fishing trip to Alaska in 2008, which included free accommodation and a private jet trip. Accommodation was provided by Arkley, ProPublica reported. Mr. Thomas and Mr. Alito said they do not believe it is necessary to report travel on annual disclosure forms. Thomas revealed he traveled on Crow jets three times in 2022 after ethics rules were revised in March to clarify that judges and justices must report private jet travel I made it. He also mentioned for the first time the 2014 sale of real estate to Crow Co., a deal that most ethics experts say should have been reported long ago.
In July, the Judiciary Committee advanced a bill that would require the high court to adopt a code of ethics, create a system to investigate suspected violations of that code, and publicly explain judges’ decisions to abstain. The bill lacks the bipartisan support needed to pass the Senate and is unlikely to be considered in the Republican-controlled House.
