Supreme Court sidesteps new ethics standards with latest orders

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Supreme Court justice explained her absence from a case. A judge did not.

The difference shows how difficult it can be to forge consensus on even small ethical steps. the supreme courtfacing new calls to adopt a code of ethics following revelations about unrevealed gifts from a Republican megadonor to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that the court needs to do more to reassure a skeptical public that judges take their ethical obligations seriously.

Although judges have resisted a binding code of ethics, all nine signed a “statement of ethical principles and practices” issued in late April that promised at least a little additional disclosure when one or more of them opt out of a case.

A judge “may provide a summary explanation of a disqualification decision,” the statement says, a change from the standard practice of saying nothing at all.

A week ago, Justice Elena Kagan became the first member of the court to explain herself, noting that her previous employment in the presidency Barack ObamaThe administration kept her out of an appeal, rejected by the court, of a death row inmate in Florida.

But on Tuesday, when the court rejected an appeal by the energy companies, Judge Samuel Alito said nothing about why he was not involved.

Alito did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press, sent through the court’s public information office.

The likely reason for Alito’s decision isn’t hard to find in his latest financial disclosure report: He owns between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of stock in Phillips 66, one of the companies he appealed.

Criticism of the court stems primarily from a series of reports by the nonprofit investigative journalism organization ProPublica about undisclosed gifts, including paying a relative’s school tuition and luxury travel provided to Thomas by Harlan Crow, a Dallas billionaire.