Alito rejects calls to quit Supreme Court cases on Trump and Jan. 6 because of flag controversies
apnews.com

... Justice Samuel Alito is rejecting calls to step aside from Supreme Court cases involving former President Donald Trump and Jan. 6 defendants because of the controversy over flags that flew over his homes.

In letters to members of Congress on Wednesday, Alito said his wife, Martha-Ann, was responsible for flying an upside-down flag over his home in 2021 and an "Appeal to Heaven" flag at his New Jersey beach house last year. Both flags were like those carried by rioters who violently stormed the Capitol in January 2021 while echoing Trump's false claims of election fraud.

Neither incident at Alito's homes merited his recusal, wrote the justice, who has rejected calls from Democrats in the past to recuse on other issues.

"I am confident that a reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that the events ... do not meet the applicable standard for recusal," he wrote. "I am therefore required to reject your request." ...

Quelle surprise.

A Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court? Transparency and Bias in the Judiciary (August 20230
iaals.du.edu

... Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation that would establish stronger ethics standards for the U.S. Supreme Court. It would mandate a new "code of conduct" for the highest court and a process for adjudicating violations modeled on the enforcement mechanisms that exist in lower courts. This code of conduct would require more transparency and accountability around potential conflicts of interest, gifts, and recusal decisions.

The legislation comes on the heels of news about political donors funding luxury vacations for Supreme Court justices, which has generated increased scrutiny about activities of justices that could be construed as interfering with judicial independence and impartiality. The legislation is not expected to pass, but it is part of a broader public conversation about judicial ethics and public trust -- or lack thereof -- in the courts. This conversation impacts not only the perceived legitimacy of the Supreme Court but also public perception of the judiciary more broadly.

Since its inception in 2006, IAALS has been at the forefront of efforts to bolster confidence in the judiciary and to understand what impacts public trust in courts. Relevant to the current national conversation about ethics and impartiality, IAALS' research in Cornerstones of State Judicial Selection and the O'Connor Judicial Selection Plan identified the following core, desirable attributes of individual judges and court systems, all of which are fundamental to ensuring public trust in the judiciary:

- - - Fairness and impartiality. Judges must not only avoid actual bias or impropriety but must also avoid the appearance of bias or impropriety, which undermines trust in their judicial independence.

- - - Ethics and integrity. Judges should be mindful that they represent the court at all times and should therefore act with integrity "both on and off the bench." Judicial integrity includes, among other things, conducting oneself "in a way that engenders respect for the courts. (See IAALS' An Uncommon Dialogue: What Do We Want in Our Judges & How Do We Get There?)

- - - Accountability and transparency. Judges should hold themselves accountable to the public.

- - - Trustworthiness. The legitimacy of court systems relies on public trust and confidence. Courts should address concerns that interfere with trust in the legal system.

This is not an exhaustive list of desirable attributes but reflects how deeply important it is that the public be able to trust the integrity and impartiality of its court systems and judicial officers. ...