Will a WSJ interview change how Supreme Court Justice Alito decides a case?

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), is trying to get Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from an upcoming case. One of the lawyers involved in the case interviewed the Justice and then wrote an op-ed about him in the Wall Street Journal. 

The case is Moore v. United States, a 16th Amendment case involving federal taxes. The lawyer is David Rivkin, who wrote an opinion piece in the Journal titled “Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court’s Plain-Spoken Defender.”

Durbin wants Alito to recuse himself because he considers Rivkin’s interview and op-ed a conflict of interest. Alito said there was no valid reason for his recusal. 

“Senator Durbin’s request for my recusal is presumably based on the theory that my vote in Moore will be affected in some way by the content of the articles that resulted from the interviews,” Alito wrote. 

Straight Arrow News spoke with Durbin about Alito’s response.

Ray Bogan: “What gives you reason to believe that Wall Street Journal article that was written about him by the attorney could influence his decision?”

Sen. Dick Durbin: “Well, I tell you, that was a puff piece. It was an interview by an attorney to tell the Alito point of view and to try to make the public aware of where he stands politically. And the same attorney is appearing before him in the case? Come on, you know, let’s connect the dots. That makes no sense. It’s not good for the reputation of the court.”

Ray Bogan: “Do you have set parameters as to a level of relationship or affiliation that a justice can have with someone before they have to recuse themselves? How do you make that more concrete?”

Sen. Dick Durbin: “Well, you can’t put in concrete the words ‘appearance of impropriety.’ When it comes down to an appearance, the justices and all members of Congress, as well, should be sensitive to conflicts of interest that are apparent to the public at large.”

Durbin wants the Supreme Court to create a new code of ethics. The Judiciary Committee advanced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act in July, but the Senate has not approved it. The bill would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct, create a way to investigate violations, and increase disclosure rules for when Justices have a connection or affiliation with someone involved, including groups that have filed amicus briefs.