Supreme Court judges have lifetime appointments at decent salaries. They don’t have to own and sell individual stocks.
A new report on Judge Samuel Alito reminds us of the unnecessary problems this can cause.
To be clear, I’m not talking about The New York Times’ report of an upside-down flag outside Alito’s home after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, which raised questions about his ability to serve impartially in crucial pending appeals.
Instead, this later report focuses on Alito’s apparent sale of shares of Bud Light maker Anheuser-Busch — and his possibly related purchase of Molson Coors stock — in the wake of an anti-trans Bud Light boycott last year. Chris Geidnerwho wrote the stock-related report for Law Dork examining Alito’s possible boycott participation, noted:
Alito did not respond to Geidner for his report, which quoted Gabe Roth of watchdog Fix the Court as saying it was “possible the sale was innocuous, or unrelated to the controversy, but given Alito’s predecessors he has the benefit of the doubt lost. my opinion.”
Whatever Alito’s intentions, this is an issue of justice’s own making. There is no need for judges to own and sell individual stocks – unlike investing in mutual funds, for example – if they want to avoid these types of questions about denial. Most justices appear to be in compliance, although Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer are three members of the court known for their stock holdings in recent years.
Alito and the court have enough (self-imposed) problems. This is easy to solve.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including Supreme Court news, the Donald Trump cases and more.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
