Taxpayer-funded staff of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor have worked hand in glove with schools and libraries to boost her book sales, according to a detailed report.
The Associated Press said Sotomayor has earned at least $3.7 million from book sales since she joined the court in 2009. Of that, she has raked in at least $400,000 since 2019 from sales of her children’s books.
The AP noted that unlike other branches of government, which would forbid taxpayer-funded staff from assisting in such ventures, the nation’s highest court has no formal code of ethical conduct.
“This is one of the most basic tenets of ethics laws that protects taxpayer dollars from misuse,” said Kedric Payne, a former deputy chief counsel at the Office of Congressional Ethics and current general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center.
“The problem at the Supreme Court is there’s no one there to say whether this is wrong,” Payne said.
Trending:
The AP focused on a 2019 event in Portland, Oregon, sponsored by Portland Community College and the Multnomah County Library, before which Sotomayor aide Anh Le pushed book sales.
The event was free, but once the 550 tickets were gone, Le promoted book purchases as a way to meet Sotomayor.
“Please also let them know that they can attend the signing line to meet the Justice even if they are not able to attend the event,” she wrote in an email to library and college staff on Aug. 26, 2019.
“Is there a reminder going out that people need to purchase a book at the event or bring a book to get into the signing line?” Le asked the next day. “Most of the registrants did not purchase books.”
Are the actions of Sotomayor’s staff unethical?
Yes: 97% (33 Votes)
No: 3% (1 Votes)
When she learned of the library’s plans, she said more copies of Sotomayor’s book needed to be made available for purchase.
“For an event with 1000 people and they have to have a copy of Just Ask to get into the line, 250 books is definitely not enough,” Le wrote. “Families purchase multiples and people will be upset if they are unable to get in line because the book required is sold out.”
The AP reported that similar conversations preceded appearances at the University of California, Davis and the University of Wisconsin.
The Multnomah County Library sent a statement to Fox News saying that a “local independent bookseller made books available for purchase at the event.”
The Supreme Court issued a statement that said, “Chambers staff assist the Justices in complying with judicial ethics guidance for … visits, including guidance relating to judges’ publications.”
“For example, judicial ethics guidance suggests that a judge may sign copies of his or her work, which may also be available for sale, but there should be no requirement or suggestion that attendees are required to purchase books in order to attend,” the statement said.
“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. Asking whether attendees were reminded that they must either buy or bring a book in order to enter a signing line at an event would in no way conflict with the standard outlined above.”
Recent reports have alleged that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have accepted gifts from individuals with “interests before the court,” according to NBC News.
Later this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on what’s called the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.
“Whether you agree or disagree with the most recent historic decisions by the Supreme Court, we hope we can all agree on one thing — these nine justices have extraordinary powers under our Constitution,” Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois said.
“The belief that they should not be held accountable or even disclose lavish gifts from wealthy benefactors is an affront to the nation they were chosen to serve. To hold these nine Justices to the same standard as every other federal judge is not a radical or partisan notion. Since the Court won’t act, Congress will.”
