SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
paul singer
'Lawless Con Man' Leonard Leo Defies Senate Subpoena Over Supreme Court Gifts
"This subpoena is a direct result of Mr. Leo's own actions and choices," said Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin.
Apr 12, 2024
"Incredible," said one journalist on Friday of right-wing legal activist Leonard Leo's reasons for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee as the panel investigates conservative Supreme Court justices' relationships with Leo and other Republican operatives and donors.
The Federalist Society co-chairman told The Washington Post that the subpoena was "politically motivated."
"I am not capitulating to [committee Chair Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.)] lawless support of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and the left's dark money effort to silence and cancel political opposition," said Leo, who has lobbied for the appointments of far-right judges to federal benches, in a statement.
The subpoena came over four months after the committee voted along party lines to subpoena Leo and billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow following numerous reports about luxury travel and gifts they and others bestowed on Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
ProPublica revealed last June that Leo organized a luxury fishing trip to Alaska for Alito, with lodging and private jet travel paid for, in 2008. The trip was not included on Alito's federally required financial disclosure forms, continuing a pattern that ProPublica first reported on last April with several luxury vacations, real estate transactions, and other financial gifts to Thomas that were paid for by Crow.
Durbin said Thursday that the subpoena was issued because of the "blanket refusal to cooperate" with the investigation that Leo has displayed since last July.
"His outright defiance left the committee with no other choice but to move forward with compulsory process. For that reason, I have issued a subpoena to Mr. Leo," said Durbin. "Mr. Leo has played a central role in the ethics crisis plaguing the Supreme Court and, unlike the other recipients of information requests in this matter, he has done nothing but stonewall the committee. This subpoena is a direct result of Mr. Leo's own actions and choices."
The ethics violations revealed by ProPublica's reporting forced the Supreme Court last fall to adopt a code of conduct for the first time, modeled on the rules followed by judges on lower federal courts.
But ethics watchdogs labeled the code a "toothless PR stunt" and a "cover-up for Clarence Thomas," as it did not include an enforcement mechanism and provided the justices with discretion over recusal decisions.
Debt relief advocates called on Alito to recuse himself last year from two cases pertaining to Biden's student debt cancellation program, citing the reporting on Leo's gifts to the justice. The plane Alito took to Alaska was owned by billionaire investor Paul Singer, who has financially backed groups that lobbied the court to overturn Biden's plan.
The court struck down the debt relief program last June.
Like former President Donald Trump, said Alex Aronson, former chief counsel for Judiciary Committee senior member Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), "the other man most responsible for shaping our Supreme Court's runaway majority is a lawless con man and crook."
Caroline Ciccone, president of government watchdog Accountable.US, said Friday that "Supreme Court billionaire matchmaker Leonard Leo" is the force behind "a full-blown corruption crisis has plagued the high court for over a year, undermining its credibility and plummeting public trust in the court to record lows."
"Today's subpoena is a critical step toward accountability, and toward ensuring that our high court adheres to the highest possible ethics standards," said Ciccone. "As a result of the strong leadership of Chairman Durbin and the Judiciary Committee, we can now begin to get to the bottom of the corruption crisis pervading the Supreme Court."
With Leo refusing to comply with the subpoena, Democrats would need to hold a vote in the closely divided Senate to seek enforcement.
Former Trump aide Peter Navarro was found guilty of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the committee that investigated the January 6, 2021 insurrection, and reported to a federal prison last month to serve his four-month sentence.
"Leonard Leo thinks he's above the law just like Navarro did," said one attorney. "We'll see if he's right."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Alito's Billionaire Patron Holding $90 Million in Finance Firms, Watchdog Demands Recusal From CFPB Case
"Should Justice Alito preside over this case despite his clear conflicts of interest, it would add to the worsening Supreme Court corruption crisis and underscore the urgent need for ethics reform," said one critic.
Sep 18, 2023
Anti-corruption watchdog Accountable.US on Monday said there is a clear need for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from an upcoming court case regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as a new analysis revealed the extent of one of his key associate's financial interests in the case.
The group released new data showing that hedge fund manager Paul Singer holds at least $90 million in financial firms overseen by the CFPB, which was established in 2011 through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and has since provided $16 billion in financial relief to defrauded consumers and ordered companies to pay $3.7 billion in penalties.
The findings were released three months after ProPublica revealed Singer paid for a luxury fishing trip for the right-wing justice in 2008, costing him an estimated $100,000 each way. Alito has never recused himself from subsequent cases in which Elliott Management, Singer's firm, was directly involved, including one in which the court awarded $2.4 billion to the fund.
Now, said Accountable.US, "should Alito choose to preside over this case despite his billionaire benefactor's direct financial stake in the outcome, it would only fuel an already raging Supreme Court corruption crisis," referring to numerous reports of Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and others accepting gifts or money from groups or people with business before the court.
The case, which the court is set to hear on October 3, is CFPB v. the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) and pertains to the CFPB's funding structure. Opponents—including Republican lawmakers whose own constituents have directly benefited from the agency's work—claim it is unconstitutional for the agency to be funded through the Federal Reserve and say Congress should approve appropriations for the CFPB regularly.
"In one fell swoop," said Accountable.US on Monday, "an anti-CFPB-led Congress could cut the purse strings and erase over a decade of consumer protections and rules that have made our markets fairer and more stable."
The watchdog said the lawsuit filed by a group that represents payday lenders "has nothing to do with upholding the Constitution and everything to do with obstructing the agency that holds the financial industry accountable when they harm consumers."
The group highlighted Singer's connections to the case, including:
- Elliott Investment Management's holdings of $60 million in Fidelity National Information Services, which has over 5,000 complaints in the CFPB's database and has said the agency could have "an adverse impact" on its business;
- The fund's holdings of more than $30 million in Q2 Holdings, Inc., which issued a statement on the case backing the CFSA;
- The fund's 2017 letter to investors calling on the Trump administration to undo the CFPB's independent funding structure and saying "the financial system needs to be freed from the dysfunctional dictates" of Dodd-Frank financial reforms; and
- Singer's own statement in 2011 in which he said Dodd-Frank was "entirely nutty."
"The sprawling web of financial dealings Mr. Singer has overseen by the CFPB explains why his firm has aggressively criticized the agency's independence," said Liz Zelnick, director of Accountable.US' Economic Security and Corporate Power program. "The cause for Alito's recusal in this matter is cut and dry. Should Justice Alito preside over this case despite his clear conflicts of interest, it would add to the worsening Supreme Court corruption crisis and underscore the urgent need for ethics reform."
The watchdog's report shows that Alito "enjoyed untold amounts of luxury and largesse from a billionaire hedge fund manager whose business interests would benefit if the Supreme Court allows for the worst rollback of consumer protections in U.S. history," Zelnick added.
Accountable.US warned that Alito's failure to recuse himself from the case could make it more likely that the court will side with "predatory lenders" like those tied to Singer's business.
"That will likely mean the agency's future funding will be beholden to the political whims of Congress," said the group. "There is little doubt a U.S. House of Representatives made up of lawmakers openly hostile to the CFPB—like the current MAGA Majority—would zero-fund the agency the first chance they get on behalf of their financial industry donors."
"It would be catastrophic," the watchdog added, "for consumers, honest businesses that simply want to compete fairly, and the stability of financial markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alito Urged to Recuse From Case That Could Preemptively Ban Federal Wealth Tax
"First he accepted lavish gifts from billionaires and failed to disclose them. Then he gave a buddy-buddy interview to one of the case's anti-wealth tax lawyers. Enough."
Aug 09, 2023
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is facing growing calls to recuse himself from a case that could hamstring Congress' ability to enact a federal wealth tax, a policy that progressive lawmakers and economists say is needed to rein in out-of-control inequality.
Late last week, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter urging Chief Justice John Roberts to "take appropriate steps to ensure that Justice Alito will recuse himself" from Moore v. United States, which the Supreme Court recently agreed to take up.
The lawmakers' demand was prompted by a friendly interview that Alito gave to The Wall Street Journal's opinion section, which in June allowed the right-wing justice to get out in front of a ProPublicastory on his luxury trip with billionaire hedge fund titan Paul Singer.
The interview late last month was conducted in part by David Rivkin Jr., an attorney who is representing the plaintiffs in Moore v. United States. The case, which is mentioned in passing in the Journal's write-up of the Alito interview, concerns whether unrealized gains such as stock appreciation can be subject to federal taxation.
Unrealized gains are currently untaxed in the U.S., allowing billionaires such as Tesla CEO Elon Musk to accumulate massive fortunes while paying little to nothing in federal income taxes.
Supporters of the Moore plaintiffs, who are specifically challenging an obscure foreign earnings provision in the 2017 Republican tax law, have encouraged the Supreme Court to explicitly address the constitutionality of wealth taxes in its ruling.
"This case presents the court with an ideal opportunity to clarify that taxes on unrealized gains, such as wealth taxes, are direct taxes that are unconstitutional if not apportioned among the states," the right-wing Manhattan Institute argued in a May amicus brief. (Proponents of a tax on unrealized gains, such as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), have expressed confidence that such a tax is constitutional.)
The Manhattan Institute is chaired by Singer, whose private jet flew Alito to an Alaska fishing trip that the justice did not disclose.
"Alito needs to recuse himself from the case deciding the constitutionality of a wealth tax," Americans for Tax Fairness, a progressive advocacy group, said Wednesday. "First he accepted lavish gifts from billionaires and failed to disclose them. Then he gave a buddy-buddy interview to one of the case's anti-wealth tax lawyers. Enough."
In their letter last week, Senate Democrats argued that Alito violated the Supreme Court's narrow ethical principles by agreeing to sit for an interview with an attorney with business before the court.
"Mr. Rivkin's access to Justice Alito and efforts to help Justice Alito air his personal grievances could cast doubt on Justice Alito's ability to fairly discharge his duties in a case in which Mr. Rivkin represents one of the parties," the senators wrote. "Recusal in these matters is the only reasonable way for Justice Alito to prevent further damage to public confidence in the court."
It is unlikely that Roberts or Alito will agree to the lawmakers' demands, given that both justices have cast doubt on Congress' power to oversee and regulate the Supreme Court.
"This episode again illustrates why legislation establishing stronger, enforceable ethics standards for the court is of paramount importance," the senators' letter concludes. "The court is mired in an ethical crisis of its own making, yet its only response has been a weak statement on ethics that Justice Alito has apparently ignored. It is unacceptable for the highest court in the land to have the lowest ethical standards, and because the court has abdicated its responsibility to establish its own standards, Congress must act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular