The SCOTUS Financial Disclosure Forms They Really Hope You Don't Read

The Supreme Court shines light on the justices' finances in the most opaque manner possible.

After yet another term where major corporations routinely prevailed — either as parties or amici — the Supreme Court dumped the 2014 financial disclosures of the nine justices on a nation entering the three-day Independence Day weekend under a cloud of SCOTUS fatigue following two weeks of monumental rulings. Shockingly, the disclosures didn’t generate a lot of “buzz” on the morning shows.

Everything about this is so calculated to frustrate the stated goal of providing transparency that it’s stunning the Supreme Court doesn’t have a marshal hand these out while repeating, “Show’s over folks, nothing to see here.”

The release was even delayed for several weeks while the Administrative Office sought “clarifications,” though most sources place the blame on Justice Alito’s late filing. The timing was certainly convenient for Justice Alito, as the late disclosure scuttled any mainstream media coverage of the fact that he sold shares of Coca-Cola Co. worth between $15,000 and $50,000 so he could un-recuse himself in a dispute between Coca-Cola and Pom Wonderful. Did we mention that money is tax-deferred? Because it is: the justices can defer capital gains on shares sold to resolve potential conflicts.

While Justice Alito made his decision — against Coca-Cola with a unanimous Court — devoid of an obvious conflict, this policy places justices in a shady position. Justice Alito must have made his sale with an inkling that his eight fellow justices were going to side against Coke. He didn’t need to take part in the decision, though doing so allowed him to divest himself from a company that was about to lose a big case. Even if that played no role in his thinking, the Supreme Court should be shielded from such appearances of impropriety.

But at least the Coca-Cola case presented only an appearance of impropriety. Per Fix the Court:

In fact, in a first-of-its-kind report released last month, Fix the Court found that between 2009 and 2014, Roberts, Breyer and Alito has sided with companies whose stocks they own nearly 70 percent of the time those companies filed an amicus brief.

This would be disconcerting if the Supreme Court followed any actual ethical rules. But Chief Justice Roberts consistently dismisses as a “common misconception” the idea that the Supreme Court needs an ethical code akin to the rules governing other federal judges. And the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2015 may just as well be titled Unicorn And Fairy Habitat Protection Act for all its chances of passing through this legislature.

Sponsored

With those avenues closed, all we have to hold the High Court accountable are these public disclosures. Though the Court, in an era where information can be beamed across the world at the speed of light, throws up roadblocks all around these things. It’s easier to secure a piece of the Triforce than get your hands on these forms:

In order to obtain the justices’ reports, Fix the Court downloaded and filled out a form from the AO website and faxed it in. Then, after receiving notice the reports were ready seven weeks later, as well as notice of the cost of the reports at $0.20 per page, Fix the Court staff went in person to present a $17.20 check at the AO building in Washington, D.C., at which point AO staff handed over the paper reports.

At least once you have the form it provides crystal-clear insights into potentially problematic financial holdings. Here’s a shot from the disclosure of Chief Justice Roberts:

So, he earned a Dividend of $D from Time Warner on an investment of $N as measured by T.

F**king simple, right?

Sponsored

Looking to the fine print, we learn that $D corresponds to $5,001-$15,000 — a hell of a range, and $N per T means an investment of $250,001-$500,000 by a cash market value method. Even if we accepted as sufficient disclosure such wide estimation ranges — literally code P2 covers a $20 million range — there’s no reason to substitute all these ranges for arbitrary one-letter codes other than deliberately obscuring the document to deter the public (or, for that matter, most of the mainstream media) from bothering to dig into them. That’s really the most galling aspect of these forms — the Court intentionally designed its disclosure to be difficult to read.

For the record, Time Warner filed a brief in ABC v. Aereo, a case with potentially massive implications for the cable company. Guess which way Chief Justice Roberts voted?

Yep. Nothing to see here.

(Check out the full forms of each justice below, courteously placed on the Internet by the folks at Fix the Court….)

Chief Justice Roberts’s Financial Disclosure
Justice Scalia’s Financial Disclosure
Justice Kennedy’s Financial Disclosure
Justice Thomas’s Financial Disclosure
Justice Ginsburg’s Financial Disclosure
Justice Breyer’s Financial Disclosure
Justice Alito’s Financial Disclosure
Justice Sotomayor’s Financial Disclosure
Justice Kagan’s Financial Disclosure

Justices’ Disclosure Reports Highlight Antiquated Process, Conflicts of Interest [Fix the Court]