Gifts: a standard way for individuals to express gratitude or love toward others. They show up on birthdays and holidays, and they typically serve to celebrate a special occasion or to build relationships. The cross-cultural practice of gift-exchange is normalized and encouraged in our society. Unfortunately, the acceptance of lavish gifts has become a commonplace in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Critics of the Supreme Court Justices worry that their integrity is compromised due to the gifts they receive. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, was found to have accepted 103 gifts collectively valued at $2.4 million between the years 2004-2023. The value of the gifts he accepted is roughly 10 times higher than the value of gifts received by all other justices added together during that time. Although Thomas has the longest tenure of any current justice, even former justices like John Paul Stevens, who served for 35 years, only accepted just under $80,000 worth of gifts.
Currently, government officials — including Supreme Court Justices — must disclose all gifts aggregating more than $250 or the “minimal value,” whichever is greater, under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. In 1981, the “minimal value” was defined as $100 in retail value, but has been adjusted for inflation every three years. However, some gifts are exempt from disclosure entirely, including “any food, lodging or entertainment received as a personal hospitality,” or gifts with a market value of $100. To reduce external influence, the 1989 Ethics Reform Act prohibits justices from accepting “anything of value from a person … seeking official action.” This means justices may not receive gifts from either individuals who have business before the Court or who could be significantly impacted by the Court’s activities.
While these acts set a standard, the ethics bar in the Supreme Court is not high enough to prevent conflicts of interests from interfering with judicial decisions. In July 2008, conservative Justice Samuel Alito took a fishing trip to Alaska on hedge fund GOP billionaire Paul Singer’s private jet. Since the vacation, Singer’s hedge fund has appeared before the Court at least 10 times, including in a key case against Argentina in which Alito ruled in favor of Singer with the 7-1 majority. Alito has received at least 16 gifts worth a combined $170,095 during his tenure, and has denied any wrongdoings regarding his relationship with Singer in an op-ed.
On March 18, the federal judiciary announced a new standard barring justices from classifying luxury travel-related gifts as “reimbursements” to avoid disclosing their exact value. This policy was created following revelations that Justice Thomas did not disclose at least three private jet trips paid for by billionaire Texas businessman Harlan Crow.
However, having requirements for disclosure is not the same as having a gift value cap. Justices are still able to accept lavish gifts without clear boundaries even if they must report their value. Contrastingly, U.S. Senators, under Senate Rule 35, can only take gifts that “have a value of less than $50 and a cumulative value from one source during a calendar year of less than $100.” Notable exceptions include gifts under $250 on the basis of personal friendship — gifts exceeding this amount must be approved by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics — and gifts from relatives or colleagues.
Enacting new legislation that holds justices accountable is crucial considering that public confidence in the Supreme Court is at a new low. According to one AP-NORC poll, four in 10 Americans have “hardly any confidence at all” in the people running the Supreme Court. Confidence was greatly split across party lines, with 82% of Republicans reporting either “a great deal of confidence” or “only some confidence,” compared to just 41% of Democrats and 58% of Independents saying the same. Support seems to have eroded due to the perception that justices are driven by ideology as opposed to impartiality. The same poll found that 70% of Americans believe that Supreme Court justices are “more likely to try to shape the law to fit their own ideologies” rather than serve as “an independent fact check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial.”
Given the crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court, it is imperative that Congress acts quickly to restore some semblance of trust in the high court. If Congress wants to re-establish public faith and trust in an institution that is designed to provide crucial checks and balances, they first must pass the High Court Gift Ban Act.
Introduced by Representatives Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., in June of this year, the High Court Gift Ban Act aims to “prohibit Federal judges from receiving certain gifts.” The act caps the value of single gifts presented to justices at $50 and restricts the combined value of multiple gifts to $100 in aggregate over a year. It also regulates gifts of personal hospitality, limiting them to the value equal to the tax threshold for personal gifts, which sits at about $18,000.
In a press release, Rep. Raskin stated, “Our legislation is an essential first step in bringing about some accountability to, and restoring the integrity and reputation of, the Supreme Court.” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez echoed Raskin’s sentiment, emphasizing, “This is not about politics — it’s about safeguarding the strength and integrity of our democracy.” The act is critical for reducing incentives that go against ethical values and for eliminating immoral motives that may influence justices’ decisions.
Luxury gifts are not a necessary element for expressing gratitude. There is no reason for any public servant to accept opulent trips, vacations, or other items from the wealthy or any other parties with a stake in their work or decisions. Parties with deep pockets should not be able to sway justices toward more favorable rulings by giving gifts. They should have to argue their position the same as any party in a U.S. legal proceeding: in the courtroom. Court corruption is a concern for many Americans and it is time for Congress to hold justices to account.
Even though voters have limited control over the judicial branch, they can elect members of Congress that uphold legitimacy. With each election, voters have the opportunity to choose lawmakers who will sign legislation that protects checks and balances. Constituents can urge their recently elected or re-elected representative to pass the High Court Gift Ban Act to prevent the cracks of corruption from forming in the nation’s most powerful court.
If voters want a Court that serves the people, not the elite, it’s time to give democracy the gift it deserves: an accountable Supreme Court free from external influences.
