Key findings and takeaways from the Committee’s investigation include:

• Justice Scalia accepted lavish gifts from billionaires and others with business before the Court for more than a decade, in violation of federal law, including 258 personal trips, dozens of which were never disclosed.
• Justice Thomas chose to ignore legal obligations to disclose lavish gifts after media scrutiny over his disclosures in 2004, in violation of federal law.
• Justice Alito misused the “personal hospitality exemption” when he did not disclose gifts of transportation and lodging he received for a luxury fishing trip to Alaska in 2008, in violation of federal law.
• Justice Thomas failed to disclose gifts on two occasions never before known to the public until the Committee’s investigation, including a July 2021 private jet trip to Saranac, New York, and an October 2021 private jet and yacht trip to New York City sponsored by Harlan Crow.
• The two well-established “Stop the Steal” symbols at two of the Alitos’ properties while Justice Alito actively participated in cases concerning the 2020 presidential election and January 6 create an appearance of partiality that can only be addressed by recusal.
• Justice Alito’s unprecedented conduct when sitting for an interview with an attorney with a case pending before the Court raises a concern that he might be influenced to favor the party substantively or procedurally.
• Justice Thomas has accepted largesse from benefactors in amounts that have no comparison in modern American history.
• Ginni Thomas’s paid efforts involving the “Stop the Steal” movement and right-wing causes created a clear conflict of interest for Justice Thomas, as federal law prohibits justices from hearing cases where the interests of spouses are involved.
• To date, the Judicial Conference of the United States has failed to adequately respond to the Supreme Court’s ethical challenges. The Judicial Conference’s September 2024 revisions to gift disclosure requirements are oddly specific in expanding the personal hospitality exemption and seem more likely to absolve past misconduct and facilitate the acceptance of future largesse than strengthen judicial ethics.