SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
leonard leo
Alito and Thomas Urged to Recuse From Key Case Over 'Cozy Ties' to Right-Wing Kingpin
"Americans deserve a legal system that isn't influenced by billionaires and special interest backers pushing an agenda at the expense of working families," said a watchdog group leader.
Mar 19, 2025
Ahead of U.S. Supreme Court arguments next week, a watchdog group asserted Wednesday that right-wing Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas must recuse themselves from a case "whose outcome could have sweeping consequences," citing "significant conflicts of interest" due to their relationships with "conservative kingpin Leonard Leo."
In Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research, a right-wing group is challenging the constitutionality of the FCC's Universal Service Fund program.
Vox's Ian Millhiser reported Wednesday that "if the Supreme Court accepts an argument raised by a federal appeals court, which struck down the federal program, it would bring about one of the biggest judicial power grabs in American history, and hobble the government's ability to do, well, pretty much anything."
In the new report about Alito and Thomas, the watchdog Accountable.US issued a similar warning about the case's potential impacts: "Effectively defunct for almost a century, the nondelegation doctrine prohibits Congress from passing off its legislative power to federal agencies... Reviving the doctrine would cripple agencies' ability to govern consumer safeguards, social security, Medicare, and more during a time when the Trump administration has begun to slash federal agencies."
"Now before the high court, the case presents an obvious conflict of interest for many of the justices who are personally tied to (and in some cases, friends of) the conservative activist Leonard Leo, who is closely connected to Consumers' Research," the analysis explains, pointing to reporting that Leo is the group's "main backer."
While "all six conservatives now sitting on the Supreme Court can credit Leo with helping to shepherd their confirmations," the watchdog's report states, the right-wing legal activist is "close personal friends" with Alito and Thomas.
According to the report:
- Leo has known Justice Thomas since the early 1990s when Leo was clerking in D.C. Since then, Leo has traveled with Thomas and invited him to his personal residence in Maine. The justice is also the godfather to one of Leo's daughters. Justice Thomas' wife, Ginni, has previously called Leo her "hero" and "mentor." Over the past 15 years, Leo and Ginni have worked together on several projects, operationalizing the outside game of conservative dark money and politics.
- Leo has also traveled with Justice Alito, most notably to Alaska on a private fishing trip (which Justice Alito did not disclose at the time). Leo's Federalist Society has also sponsored numerous trips overseas for Alito, some of them attended by Leo himself.
"Americans deserve a legal system that isn't influenced by billionaires and special interest backers pushing an agenda at the expense of working families. Justices Thomas and Alito's cozy ties to Leonard Leo and thereby Consumers' Research fly straight in the face of that, and present a clear conflict of interest impeding their ability to rule impartially on the case," said Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone in a statement.
"Public trust in the Supreme Court is already at an all-time low because of misguided conduct by justices–this case threatens to degrade it further," Ciccone continued. "The Supreme Court simply cannot be trusted to defend the Constitution if it doesn't adopt an obligatory, enforceable code of conduct that cleans up the impropriety that's existed on the court for years. Thomas and Alito must recuse themselves and restore a semblance of integrity to the highest court."
In addition to releasing the report, Accountable.US and two other groups, Take Back the Court and United for Democracy, argued for Alito and Thomas' recusal in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts—who on Tuesday publicly condemned right-wing attacks on the federal judiciary.
"The Supreme Court has been engulfed by corruption scandals, many of which centering around the right-wing justices' overly friendly relationships with powerful billionaires and special interests," United for Democracy senior adviser Meagan Hatcher-Mays said Wednesday. "At the same time that Justices Thomas and Alito were accepting lavish gifts and trips from billionaires, they were hearing cases with those same billionaires' legal interests at stake."
"It's impossible for the American public to trust in Supreme Court rulings when this kind of glad-handing is taking place," she added. "The appearance of impropriety is clear in FCC v. Consumers' Research given Leonard Leo's long-time friendship with Justices Thomas and Alito and his financial entanglements with Consumers’ Research. Justices Thomas and Alito must recuse themselves immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Taps Anti-Trans Lawyer Harmeet Dhillon for Key Civil Rights Post
"Dhillon has focused her career on diminishing civil rights, rather than enforcing or protecting them," argued one critic.
Dec 10, 2024
LGBTQ+ and voting rights defenders were among those who sounded the alarm Tuesday over Republican President-elect Donald Trump's selection of a San Francisco attorney known for fighting against transgender rights and for leading a right-wing lawyers' group that took part in Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election to oversee the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
On Monday, Trump announced his nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to head the key civil rights office, claiming on his Truth Social network that the former California Republican Party vice-chair "has stood up consistently to protect our cherished Civil Liberties, including taking on Big Tech for censoring our Free Speech, representing Christians who were prevented from praying together during COVID, and suing corporations who use woke policies to discriminate against their workers."
"In her new role at the DOJ, Harmeet will be a tireless defender of our Constitutional Rights, and will enforce our Civil Rights and Election Laws FAIRLY and FIRMLY," Trump added.
However, prominent trans activist Erin Reed warned on her Substack that Dhillon's nomination—which requires Senate confirmation—"signals an alarming shift that could make life increasingly difficult for transgender people nationwide, including those who have sought refuge in blue states to escape anti-trans legislation."
Trump has picked Harmeet Dhillon as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. She has stated that it must be "made unsafe" for hospitals to provide trans care, and frequently shares Libs of TikTok posts. She intends to target trans people in blue states. Subscribe to support my journalism.
[image or embed]
— Erin Reed (@erininthemorning.com) December 10, 2024 at 8:14 AM
Reed continued:
Dhillon's most prominent work includes founding the Center for American Liberty, a legal organization that focuses heavily on anti-transgender cases in blue states. The organization's "featured cases" section highlights several lawsuits, such as Chloe Cole's case against Kaiser Permanente; a lawsuit challenging a Colorado school's use of a transgender student's preferred name; a case against a California school district seeking to implement policies that would forcibly out transgender students; and a lawsuit against Vermont for denying a foster care license to a family unwilling to comply with nondiscrimination policies regarding transgender youth.
Reed also highlighted Dhillon's attacks on state laws protecting transgender people, as well as her expression of "extreme anti-trans views" on social media—including calling gender-affirming healthcare for trans children "child abuse."
Last year, The Guardian's Jason Wilson reported that the Center for American Liberty made a six-figure payment to a public relations firm that represented Dhillion in both "her capacity as head of her own for-profit law firm and Republican activist."
Writing for the voting rights platform Democracy Docket, Matt Cohen on Tuesday accused Dhillon of being "one of the leading legal figures working to roll back voting rights across the country."
"In the past few years, Dhillon—or an attorney from her law firm—has been involved in more than a dozen different lawsuits in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. challenging voting rights laws, redistricting, election processes, or Trump's efforts to appear on the ballot in the 2024 election," Cohen noted.
As Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement Tuesday, "The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has the critical responsibility of enforcing our nation's federal civil rights laws and ensuring equal justice under the law on behalf of all of our communities."
"That means investigating police departments that have a pattern of police abuse, protecting the right to vote, and ensuring schools don't discriminate against children based on who they are," Wiley noted. "The nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to lead this critical civil rights office is yet another clear sign that this administration seeks to advance ideological viewpoints over the rights and protections that protect every person in this country."
"Dhillon has focused her career on diminishing civil rights, rather than enforcing or protecting them," she asserted. "Rather than fighting to expand voting access, she has worked to restrict it."
A staunch Trump loyalist, Dhillon has also embraced conspiracy theories including the former president's "Big Lie" that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, and has accused Democrats of "conspiring to commit the biggest election interference fraud in world history."
She was co-chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association when it launched Lawyers for Trump, a group that urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the former president after he lost the 2020 election.
Cohen also highlighted Dhillon's ties to right-wing legal activist and Federalist Society co-chair Leonard Leo, described by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) as a "lawless con man and crook" for his refusal to comply with a Senate subpoena and his organization of lavish gifts to conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices.
"We need a leader at the Civil Rights Division who understands that civil rights protections are not partisan or political positions open to the ideological whims of those who seek to elevate a single religion or to protect political allies or particular groups over others," Wiley stressed. "We need a leader who will vigorously enforce our civil rights laws and work to protect the rights of all of our communities—including in voting, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations—without fear or favor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Who Will Check the Supreme Court That Should Be Checking Trump?
The nine justices of the nation's highest court are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act?
Dec 05, 2024
FBI director nominee-in-waiting Kash Patel writes children’s books in which his character, a wizard, vows to protect “King Donald.” (Patel also peddled pills to reverse the Covid-19 vaccine and produced a song recorded by imprisoned January 6 insurrectionists called “Justice for All.”) Ominous credentials to head the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency, one with a history of abuse.
We’ve been vocal about what’s gone wrong at the Supreme Court. It has been captured by a faction of a faction. But if we’ve ever needed an independent judiciary, we need it now. If guardrails crumble and the powerful quail before Donald Trump, the high court may be one of the last — indeed, at times, the only — protectors of the Constitution.
All of which makes the latest revelations about the Court so dismaying — the inside story of how the justices adopted an ethics code that is more loophole than law.
In the past two years, ProPublica and other news outlets have revealed startling misconduct. Justice Clarence Thomas for years had his lifestyle secretly subsidized by billionaire Harlan Crow. The billionaire provided lavish vacations, paid for the education of Thomas’s surrogate son, and even bought and renovated the justice’s mother’s house (with her living in it). If this happened with state legislators in Albany or Sacramento, we’d call it corruption. Justice Samuel Alito, too, took luxury travel from yet another billionaire, also without disclosing it. Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society played matchmaker between the judges and the billionaires. ProPublica won the Pulitzer Prize for its exposés.
Public outcry was loud enough that the Court last year felt compelled to issue a first-ever code of conduct. The justices explained that this was only to clear up a “misunderstanding” by citizens. Instead of being the only judges with no ethics code, they now had the weakest.
Now The New York Times has revealed the fevered deliberations that produced this result. It reads like the doings of sneaky pols on House of Cards. Justices sent each other memos in sealed envelopes because they were so fearful of leaks. Thomas and Alito “wrote off the Court’s critics as politically motivated and unappeasable,” write Jodi Kantor and Abbie VanSickle. The liberal justices pushed for a strong code with an enforcement mechanism, such as a panel of retired judges, to no avail.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newspaper reported, was most vocal in opposition and judicial self-regard. “The justices’ strength was their independence, he said, and he vowed to have no part in diminishing it,” the article reports. Gorsuch wrote a long memo of complaint as the rules were being drafted.
The result was a tepid code that did little to boost public confidence. It violates a core principle: Nobody is so wise that they should be the judge in their own case. The justices decide on their own when they must “recuse,” or refrain from hearing a case. Nor must they explain why they stepped back, though some justices have begun to do that. Most important, there is no mechanism for enforcement.
So the Court has served up mush. But the story need not end there. Congress has set rules for the federal courts throughout history, as envisioned by the Constitution. Samuel Alito has waxed indignant about this. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Justice Elena Kagan felt compelled to respond publicly. “It just can’t be that the Court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else,” she said. “We’re not imperial.”
This again shows why the Court needs fundamental reform. An 18-year term limit for justices would make the Court much more accountable. It accords with a fundamental American precept: Nobody should hold too much power for too long. It’s also widely popular. The most recent Fox News poll on the issue showed that 78 percent of respondents backed term limits — in other words, strong majorities of Republicans and independents as well as Democrats.
In recent years, congressional Republicans have been hostile to Supreme Court reform. With Congress in Republican hands for the next two years at least, there’s an opportunity to deepen support among conservatives and liberals, legal scholars, bar leaders, and others. It’s an idea whose time has come.
We need a strong, independent, principled Supreme Court. The ruling last summer granting vast criminal immunity empowers the president to law-break with impunity. Major rulings are due on vital issues — including the oral arguments today on state laws banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Civil liberties violations likely to accompany mass deportation of noncitizens will surely reach the justices. This term will test whether this is a principled Court or, as seems increasingly likely, a MAGA Court.
No, Kash Patel is not a wizard. The justices wear robes, but they aren’t either. They are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act? The backstage saga of their ethics code doesn’t augur well.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular