Think tank Center for Renewing America has filed an ethics complaint against Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, accusing her of failing to fully disclose her husband’s income and private contributions for a Library of Congress event celebrating her investiture.
The complaint alleges violations of federal law and potential recusal issues for Jackson.
Additionally, it claims that Jackson failed to disclose her husband’s consulting income and omitted private funding for the investiture celebration.
The complaint also highlights discrepancies in her financial disclosures and suggests that she may have willfully refused to disclose her husband’s income.
“We know this by Justice Jackson’s own admission in her amended disclosure form for 2020, filed when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, that ‘some of my previously filed reports inadvertently omitted’ her husband’s income from ‘consulting on medical malpractice cases,'” think tank President Russell Vought said.
He noted that Jackson had given “the vague statement that ‘some’ of those past disclosures contained material omissions.”
The letter emphasized that federal law states judicial officers have to disclose the source of income earned by a spouse that surpasses $1,000 “except if the spouse is self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession needs to be reported.”
“It is also troubling that Justice Jackson disclosed two sources of her husband’s medical malpractice consulting work in 2011 and then never disclosed another source despite his having received such income in subsequent years,” Vought said.
“Justice Jackson now apparently seeks to describe her husband’s consulting work under the ‘self-employment’ exception in order to avoid disclosing the sources of her husband’s consulting income,” he added.
“[Her] willful refusal to disclose her husband’s medical malpractice consulting income on several reports undermine the text and fundamental purpose of the ethics laws and calls into doubt her ability to discharge her duties impartially.”
Jackson was sworn in, “at her request, the Library of Congress hosted a massive invitation-only celebration” featuring a number of performances, which the library said were funded by private donations.
The “donations” were conveniently “unreported” on Jackson’s financial disclosure, Vought noted.
“Jackson demonstrated awareness of this same disclosure requirement when she reported other post-investiture gifts such as a $1,200 floral display,” he wrote.
“She demonstrated knowledge of this requirement when she disclosed the receipt of $6,580 in designer clothes from Vogue Magazine for a photo shoot.”
She is a classic example of the liberal mantra of do as we say not as we do!
The complaint alleges violations of federal law and potential recusal issues for Jackson.
Additionally, it claims that Jackson failed to disclose her husband’s consulting income and omitted private funding for the investiture celebration.
The complaint also highlights discrepancies in her financial disclosures and suggests that she may have willfully refused to disclose her husband’s income.
“We know this by Justice Jackson’s own admission in her amended disclosure form for 2020, filed when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, that ‘some of my previously filed reports inadvertently omitted’ her husband’s income from ‘consulting on medical malpractice cases,'” think tank President Russell Vought said.
He noted that Jackson had given “the vague statement that ‘some’ of those past disclosures contained material omissions.”
The letter emphasized that federal law states judicial officers have to disclose the source of income earned by a spouse that surpasses $1,000 “except if the spouse is self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession needs to be reported.”
“It is also troubling that Justice Jackson disclosed two sources of her husband’s medical malpractice consulting work in 2011 and then never disclosed another source despite his having received such income in subsequent years,” Vought said.
“Justice Jackson now apparently seeks to describe her husband’s consulting work under the ‘self-employment’ exception in order to avoid disclosing the sources of her husband’s consulting income,” he added.
“[Her] willful refusal to disclose her husband’s medical malpractice consulting income on several reports undermine the text and fundamental purpose of the ethics laws and calls into doubt her ability to discharge her duties impartially.”
Jackson was sworn in, “at her request, the Library of Congress hosted a massive invitation-only celebration” featuring a number of performances, which the library said were funded by private donations.
The “donations” were conveniently “unreported” on Jackson’s financial disclosure, Vought noted.
“Jackson demonstrated awareness of this same disclosure requirement when she reported other post-investiture gifts such as a $1,200 floral display,” he wrote.
“She demonstrated knowledge of this requirement when she disclosed the receipt of $6,580 in designer clothes from Vogue Magazine for a photo shoot.”
She is a classic example of the liberal mantra of do as we say not as we do!
