Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently defended his 2008 free vacation to an Alaskan fishing lodge, following an article by ProPublica that shed light on the undisclosed trip. In a column published in the Wall Street Journal, Alito clarified the circumstances surrounding the trip, which took place on a private jet owned by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. The lodging was provided at the King Salmon Lodge, owned by mortgage company entrepreneur Robin Arkley II. Both Singer and Arkley were known for their significant contributions to conservative causes.
The Washington Post summarized the ProPublica article and highlighted the unique nature of Alito’s op-ed, noting that it was uncommon for a Supreme Court justice to venture into the opinionated realm of a newspaper editorial page.
Alito chose to write the column after refusing to answer questions submitted by ProPublica. The Alaska trip had been arranged by Leonard Leo, the leader of the Federalist Society, who was reportedly involved in preparing Alito for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Leo had recruited Singer to provide Alito with a seat on his private plane for the journey to the fishing lodge.
According to ProPublica, the King Salmon Lodge was a luxury fishing resort frequented by celebrities, wealthy businessmen, and sports stars. Alito, however, countered in his Wall Street Journal column that he stayed in a modest one-room unit, describing it as a comfortable but rustic facility.
Significantly, Alito had failed to report the free accommodation or the private jet flight, which would have cost over $100,000 for a one-way charter. ProPublica’s investigation revealed that Singer’s hedge fund had appeared before the Supreme Court in at least ten cases, including a high-profile dispute with Argentina. In the Argentina case, Alito did not recuse himself and voted in favor of Singer’s hedge fund, which was ultimately awarded $2.4 billion.
Legal experts, including Charles Geyh, a professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, criticized the arrangement, questioning the appropriateness of ruling on a case involving a close friend. Geyh emphasized the ethical implications, highlighting the potential conflict of interest arising from accepting a private jet flight from someone involved in litigation before the Supreme Court.
Alito insisted that he never discussed cases with Singer and that their interactions were limited to brief and casual conversations during events attended by large groups. He also argued that a federal law required the disclosure of most gifts but made an exception for “personal hospitality” on a person’s property, including food, lodging, or entertainment. However, the ethics experts consulted by ProPublica disagreed, stating that private jet flights should have also been disclosed.
Alito defended his decision to accept the private jet flight, claiming it followed what he understood to be the standard practice, as accommodations and transportation to social functions were typically considered non-reportable gifts. He justified opting for the private jet due to the substantial cost and inconvenience associated with marshals accompanying him on a commercial flight for security reasons.
Regarding the Supreme Court cases involving Singer’s hedge fund, Alito asserted that he was unaware of Singer’s connections to those entities. He explained that it was impractical for him or his staff to search for all individuals with financial interests in the entities named in the thousands of cases brought before the Supreme Court each year.
Leonard Leo, who facilitated the Alaska trip, dismissed any notion of judicial impropriety, stating that no well-informed observer would believe that Supreme Court justices decide cases based on personal favors or free trips. Singer himself stated that he had not arranged the Alaska trip and was unaware that Alito would be present when he accepted the invitation. At the time, Singer and his companies did not have any pending business before the Supreme Court.
Additionally, Judge A. Raymond Randolph, who took senior status in 2008, was also a guest on the King Salmon Lodge trip. He did not disclose this trip or a previous free trip to Kodiak Island, Alaska, attended by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Randolph cited advice from the judiciary’s financial disclosure office as the reason for his non-disclosure.
The incident has raised concerns among legal experts about the need for more transparent reporting of gifts and potential conflicts of interest within the judiciary. The judiciary’s regulations were updated earlier this year to explicitly require disclosure of stays at commercial properties, which would have encompassed Alito’s lodging at the fishing lodge.
As the controversy continues, Alito’s op-ed and the ProPublica investigation have underscored the importance of maintaining ethical standards and transparency within the judicial system.