January, 20 2011, 02:45pm EDT
Common Cause Asks Justice Department to Investigate if Scalia, Thomas Should Have Recused Themselves from Citizens United Decision
Apparent Role at Koch Industries political strategy session cited as conflict of interest
WASHINGTON
Common Cause today is asking the Department of Justice to investigate the apparent involvement of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in political strategy sessions hosted by Koch Industries, the nation's second largest privately held company. Common Cause contends that these activities, if substantiated, constitute a conflict of interests that would require the Court to vacate its judgment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a landmark ruling that ended longstanding restrictions on corporate and union political spending. Decided one year ago tomorrow on a 5-4 vote, Citizens United provided a political advantage to Koch Industries and its corporate allies, many of which took part in a surge of corporate and other "independent" political giving that pumped nearly $300 million into the 2010 mid-term elections. Common Cause believes that if sufficient grounds for disqualification of either Justice exist, the Solicitor General should file a Rule 60(b) motion with the Supreme Court, seeking to vacate the Citizens United judgment.
"Until these questions are resolved, public debate over allegations of bias and conflicts of interest will serve to undermine the legitimacy of the Citizens United decision and erode public confidence in the integrity of our nation's highest court," Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
"This is a serious, legitimate course of legal action," said Common Cause Vice President for Programs Arn Pearson, a lawyer. "In any other court, a conflict like this would result in a motion to vacate and we believe we would prevail. The U.S. Supreme Court should be held and should hold itself to the same standard."
"Controversies over conflicts of interest involving the Supreme Court justices have been steadily increasing," said Jonathan Turley, J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School. "There is an obvious lack of deterrent for individual justices. At the present time the only real deterrent comes from the media since the Judicial Code of Conduct does not apply to the justices. While federal law requires justices to recuse themselves, 28 U.S.C. 455 has not been enforced against a justice. This leaves the law aspirational and leaves such questions to the discretion of individual justice. The problem is that some justices have shown increasingly little judgment or restraint in avoiding conflicts of interest."
Since Citizens United was decided a year ago, information has come to light that raises serious questions about the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia in that case. With respect to Justice Thomas, there is an additional potential financial conflict of interests. Virginia "Ginny" Thomas, the justice's wife, is a founder and former CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections.
Until those questions are resolved, public debate over allegations of bias and conflicts of interest will serve to undermine the legitimacy of the Citizens United decision and erode public confidence in the integrity of our nation's highest court.
BACKGROUND:
- Federal law requires any United States judge - including a Supreme Court justice - to "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."News reports indicate that Justices Scalia and Thomas attended one or more secretive political strategy sessions sponsored by Koch Industries, the second largest privately held corporation in the U.S. and a major political player that directly benefited from the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. In a letter sent last September to invited guests for the company's next retreat, scheduled for Jan. 29-30 in Palm Springs, Ca., CEO Charles Koch noted that "Past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."
- The Koch Industries retreats are highly political, and attended by an elite group of Republican donors and officials, conservative leaders, and captains of finance and industry. Charles Koch's September letter promised that the January program will convene "top experts and leaders to discuss -and offer solutions to counter - the most critical threats to our free society." A similar retreat last June in Aspen, Co. included a discussion of "plans to activate citizens against the threat of government over-spending and to change the balance of power in Congress this November. In response, participants committed to an unprecedented level of support." (emphasis added)
- That "unprecedented support" was made possible by the Supreme Court's dramatic decision in Citizens United. Koch Industries and its corporate allies derived a direct benefit from the Citizens United decision in the 2010 elections; the company, top executives Charles and David Koch and foundations controlled by their family have founded and provided financial support to other groups that benefited from the decision. According to press accounts, the astroturf group Americans for Prosperity - founded and funded by the Kochs - stated its intention last summer to spend $45 million to influence the 2010 elections. In addition, the Koch Industries PAC spent $2,518,676 in the 2010 election cycle, and individuals associated with Koch Industries and its affiliates contributed another $1,837,664. More than 90 percent of those funds were spent on behalf of Republican candidates.
- The Citizens United case was active before the Supreme Court between January 2008 and January 2010. If Justices Thomas and Scalia attended or spoke at a Koch Industries meeting during that period, it would certainly raise serious issues of the appearance of impropriety and bias. No mention of such an event is listed on the Justices' financial disclosure forms for 2008 and 2009.
- Regardless of the timeframe, it is inappropriate for a Supreme Court judge to attend closed-door strategy meetings with the nation's wealthiest political donors, corporate CEOs and political officials and lend the prestige of their position to the political goals of that event. Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states that:
A judge should not...make speeches for a political organization...or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate. ...A judge should not engage in any other political activity.
The Code goes on to explain that:
The term "political organization" refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.
- A reasonable person would question the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia in the Citizens United case if they attended a political strategy meeting sponsored by a corporation that raises and spends millions of dollars to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans. That appearance is heightened by the highly secretive nature of the meeting, which was closed to the public and the media.
- In addition, Common Cause requests the Justice Department investigate whether Justice Thomas should have recused himself from the Citizens United case based on a financial conflict of interests. Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia "Ginny" Thomas, is a co-founder of a 501(c)(4) organization, Liberty Central, which opened for business while Citizens United was pending at the Supreme Court. Ms. Thomas has described its mission as opposing the "tyranny" of President Obama and Democrats in Congress and "protecting the core founding principles" of the nation. The organization has several connections to Koch Industries and received initial funding from donations of $500,000 and $50,000 from two undisclosed donors.
- We believe the public has a right to know if these contributions were derived from Koch Industries and/or its subsidiaries or any other corporate attendees of Koch-sponsored events where Justice Thomas was featured. All sitting justices have an obligation to be aware of the financial interests of their spouses and how those interests might be impacted by relationships with litigants before the court. Without disclosure, Justice Thomas is inhibited in the process of making fundamental ethical and legal judgments and is required to disqualify himself in any proceeding "in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. SS 455(a).
Click here to view the full letter to the Justice Department.
Click here to view the Koch documents referencing Scalia and Thomas.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.
(202) 833-1200LATEST NEWS
Democrat Eva Burch Shares With Arizona Senate Her Plans to Get an Abortion
"I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion," the state senator said. "I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Mar 18, 2024
As Arizonans prepare for a potential vote on an abortion rights ballot measure, Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch on Monday took to the chamber's floor to announce that she plans to terminate her current pregnancy, explain why, and condemn harmful restrictions.
"A few weeks ago, I learned that against all odds, I am pregnant," said Burch (D-9). "Many of you know that I've had kind of a rough journey with fertility. I had my first miscarriage more than 13 years ago, and I have been pregnant many times. Since then, twice, I was lucky enough to successfully carry to term and I have two beautiful healthy little boys."
"But two years ago, while I was campaigning for this Senate seat, I became pregnant with what we later determined was a nonviable pregnancy. It was a pregnancy that we had been trying for, and we were heartbroken over it," she continued, referencing an abortion she has previously discussed publicly. "After numerous ultrasounds and blood draws, we have determined that my pregnancy is once again not progressing and is not viable And once again, I have scheduled an appointment to terminate my pregnancy."
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona."
Burch, who has worked as an emergency nurse and a nurse practitioner in a women's health clinic, stressed that "I don't think people should have to justify their abortions but I'm choosing to talk about why I made this decision because I want us to be able to have meaningful conversations about the reality of how the work that we do in this body impacts people in the real world."
After acknowledging some of the risks of pregnancy and that she accepted them to carry her two sons, she said: "I don't know how many of you have been unfortunate enough to experience a miscarriage before but I am not interested in going through it unnecessarily. And right now, the safest and most appropriate treatment for me and the treatment that I choose is abortion."
The Democrat then took aim at the Arizona Legislature for passing laws that restrict access to care for people like her. The state bans most abortions after 15 weeks, imposes a 24-hour waiting period between in-person counseling containing misinformation and the procedure, and forces patients to get medically unnecessary ultrasounds.
Detailing her trip to an abortion clinic on Friday, Burch said:
I didn't have an ultrasound because my doctor thought I needed one. I had one because legislation has forced me to do that, an invasive transvaginal ultrasound that I didn't want or need to have, performed by someone who didn't want to have to do it. I am safe and loved and protected in my marriage. But I cannot imagine how inappropriate that would be for a victim of sexual assault or for someone who has an abusive or coercive relationship with their partner—another unwanted vaginal penetration, but this time by the state, by the people who are commissioned to protect us.
Then I got to sit through an exhaustive list of absolute disinformation that was read off to me. I was told that there were alternatives to abortion, parenting or adoption among them, as if delivering a healthy baby is an option for me. It is not. My medical provider was forced to tell me multiple things that don't apply to my situation, and some that are just transparently factually false. And they do this because of laws passed by this Legislature in opposition to medical expert testimony and advice. From where I sat, the only reason I had to hear those things was in a cruel and really uninformed attempt by outside forces to shame and coerce and frighten me into making a different decision other than the one that I knew was right for me.
Burch explained that "the last time that I had an abortion, I started to miscarry that night before it was scheduled to take place. And I was denied a procedure in the hospital because I was deemed not critical enough, in spite of the fact that my embryo had died, and that my miscarriage had stalled."
"The clauses for emergencies aren't good enough. These laws can serve to intimidate doctors and it muddies the waters when they're trying to make complex decisions in situations that are really volatile," she argued. "I had been bleeding and passing huge clots for hours, but I wasn't bleeding out. And I was still pregnant. So I was offered medication to make me start bleeding again and told that I could have a procedure when I had bled enough. A waiting period is often totally inappropriate and potentially dangerous."
The lawmaker got an abortion at the clinic the following day—just two weeks before the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade in June 2022, setting off a new wave of efforts by state legislators to pass forced-pregnancy legislation.
Burch highlighted some negative impacts of being denied an abortion—from heightened risks of domestic violence and eviction to long-term health consequences. She also noted the "sensitive feelings surrounding pregnancy" and "philosophical questions that people cannot agree on," while stressing that decisions should be made by patients and providers.
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona, in the laws that restrict and dictate abortion and in the resources that it cuts and strangles and denies at every opportunity," she said of her time in the state Senate. "Our decision-making should be grounded in expert testimony and in consensus from both the medical community and from constituents, and free from political posturing and partisan bias, but that's not what I see happening."
"So I truly hope that Arizonans have the opportunity to weigh in on abortion on the ballot in November. We know that the majority of Arizonans support the right to abortion and if we can't operate in that reality in this chamber, then it is critical that everyone have the opportunity for their voices to be heard elsewhere," she concluded. "I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion at a time when the decisions being made were complicated enough. I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Among those who praised her 10-minute speech was Sam Paisley, national press secretary of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), which works to elect state lawmakers in the party.
"Arizona Sen. Eva Burch sharing her decision to get an abortion is the epitome of courage," said Paisley. "No woman should have to go through the emotional and physical hurdles she described—Arizona Republicans have passed unnecessary burdens on abortion care that put women in danger. Sen. Burch's story is powerful, but it is sadly not unique—patients across Arizona have to jump through hoops to get the care they need."
"There are very real, and sometimes even deadly, consequences to the attacks on reproductive freedom that Republicans across the country have launched," Paisley added. "The DLCC commends Sen. Burch for her advocacy and stands ready to defeat alarming GOP extremism in state legislatures in Arizona and across the country."
Jodi Liggett, founder of the Arizona Center for Women's Advancement, similarly said on social media: "Today, Sen. Eva Burch shared her heart-wrenching story of nonviable pregnancy. AZ laws... have complicated her access to care. Her situation is one of thousands; personal and complicated. Conservatives, butt out and let patients and doctors handle these decisions. Privately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Announces 'Long-Overdue' Asbestos Ban
"Today's EPA rule to ban the use of chrysotile asbestos is a groundbreaking, landmark protection," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Mar 18, 2024
Labor and environmental advocates on Monday applauded the Environmental Protection Agency for finalizing a ban on the last remaining type of asbestos used in the United States eight years after Congress amended the nation's chemical safety law to accelerate the phaseout of the carcinogenic substance.
The EPA announced a final rule to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, which is found in a wide range of products including asbestos diaphragms, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, and aftermarket automotive brakes and linings. In a rare display of election-year bipartisanship, Congress voted nearly unanimously in 2016 to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to update and strengthen the nation's chemical safety laws.
"Today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
Asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma as well as laryngeal, lung, and ovarian cancer. Banned in more than 50 countries, the substance is linked to more than 40,000 U.S. deaths each year.
"The science is clear—asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health," said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. "President [Joe] Biden understands that this concern has spanned generations and impacted the lives of countless people. That's why EPA is so proud to finalize this long-needed ban on ongoing uses of asbestos."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus said on social media that "this new asbestos ban is long-overdue and will save thousands of lives."
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a statement that "today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
"An immediate ban on the import of chrysotile asbestos for the chlor-alkali industry is a long-overdue step forward for public health," he added.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO union, hailed the EPA's "groundbreaking, landmark protection," adding that "unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Green groups echoed labor unions in welcoming the EPA move. Environmental Working Group senior vice president Scott Faber said that "it's been more than 50 years since EPA first sought to ban some uses of asbestos and we're closer than ever to finishing the job."
"For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use, and release toxins like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health," Faber added, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called forever chemicals. "Thanks to the leadership of the Biden EPA, those days are finally over."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US State Department Claims It Hasn't Seen Reports of Israel Torturing UNRWA Staff
"The U.S. cut funding to a vital aid agency during a crisis, but isn't up to speed on reports that directly impact that funding?" asked one observer.
Mar 18, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson on Monday attempted to avoid addressing allegations by employees of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees that they were tortured while in Israeli detention by claiming the U.S. State Department has not seen any media reporting on the accusations.
Ryan Grim, The Intercept's Washington, D.C. bureau chief, asked deputy State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel if he believes the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) staff members who say they were tortured by Israeli interrogators into making false confessions about involvement with the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which led the October 7 attacks on Israel. Israeli officials claimed that at least 12 out of UNRWA's 13,000 staff in Gaza had ties to Hamas and October 7.
"The U.S. cut funding to a vital aid agency during a crisis, but isn't up to speed on reports that directly impact that funding?"
"When you originally talked about the allegations against the 12 staff, you have said that UNRWA itself was the one who forwarded those allegations alone. You said you found them credible, but since then UNRWA itself has said that its staff were tortured by Israel in order to get some of those confessions extracted," said Grim. "Does that change your view of the evidence that was presented by Israel, and if UNRWA was credible enough for you believe the allegations the first time, is UNRWA credible enough when they make an allegation of torture against its staff?"
Patel replied, "I've not seen that reporting, Ryan," adding that "we continue to find the allegations that were laid out a number of months ago to be credible."
The U.S. and more than a dozen other nations suspended funding for UNRWA in the wake of the Israeli allegations. In what UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini later called an act of "reverse due process," the agency terminated nine employees in response to Israel's claims, despite admitting to having no evidence to support their firing.
The European Union and nations including Canada, Sweden, and Australia subsequently reinstated funding for UNRWA, which Lazzarini said "is facing a deliberate and concerted campaign to undermine its operations."
The controversy over UNRWA has unfolded as the agency struggles to provide shelter and humanitarian aid to Gazans, who are suffering not only Israeli bombs and bullets but also a genocidal siege and blockade that are exacerbating growing famine in the embattled enclave.
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) this week called Israeli claims that UNRWA is a Hamas proxy a "flat-out lie."
"If you cut off funding for UNRWA in Gaza entirely, it means more people will starve, more people won't get the medical assistance they need, and so it would be a huge mistake," the senator warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular