Yet another SCOTUS Spouse is posing serious conflict-of-interest questions on whether justices should disclose their partners’ work.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, is representing Fox Corporation in a defamation lawsuit, Rolling Stone reports. The SouthBank Legal managing partner “represented a prominent media company in a lawsuit alleging defamation,” per his website, referring to Redmond v. Fox Television Station LLC.
The case, which lists Barrett as an attorney for Fox, stems from Illinois man Lavell Redmond’s claim in the suit that Fox’s inaccurate reporting “directly led to Redmond being arrested and wrongfully charged with violating the reporting requirements of the sex offender registry.” The case is being argued in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Barrett was under no legal obligation to disclose the client list of her partner on mandatory ethics forms, though advocates say the top court’s ethics rules need serious improvements. The Barretts attended Notre Dame Law School together for a year, each clerking for judges and working gigs in the private sector before Amy Coney Barrett made her way to the Federal Judiciary. Jesse Barrett then opened a D.C. office for his firm mere months after his wife’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.
The curious practice of not disclosing potential conflict of interests arising from a justice’s spouse was noted by Politico in 2022, writing that Justices Thomas, Roberts and Barrett all chose to leave details about the work of their partners off their ethics forms.
The Supreme Court Justice’s colleagues’ spouses have been in the news recently, too. Justice Alito’s wife was thrust in the spotlight of discussions over the waving of a flag in support of attempts to overturn the 2020 election when Alito told members of congress that “[his] wife is fond of flying flags.” Justice Thomas’s wife played a sizable role in those same attempts to overturn the election.
All three instances of spousal political involvement have raised ethics questions into the impartiality of the three justices, who make up half of the conservative wing of the court. Supreme Court watchdogs worry that increasing conflicts and compromises to justices’ ethics pose a legitimacy crisis that demands intervention.
“Either we just accept a Supreme Court that is compromised beyond measure, and where there's no recourse,” James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, previously told Salon. “Or the other branches have a constitutional duty and power to step in and promote due process."
