Trickle
down
might
not
work
for
economics,
but
it
definitely
works
for
abuses
of
authority.
A
subtext
of
the
reporting
that
covered
Clarence
Thomas
and
Samuel
Alito’s
skirting
of
disclosure
rules
was
the
notion
that
they
were
only
able
to
get
away
with
it
because
the
Supreme
Court
didn’t
have
an
enforceable
code
of
ethics.
That
framing
was
a
little
too
hopeful
—
it
turns
out
that
several
other
federal
judges
have
skirted
their
obligations
to
report
gifts.
NPR
has
coverage:
Dozens
of
federal
judges
failed
to
fully
disclose
free
luxury
travel
to
judicial
conferences
around
the
world,
as
required
by
internal
judiciary
rules
and
federal
ethics
law,
an
NPR
investigation
has
found.
As
a
result,
the
public
remained
in
the
dark
about
potential
conflicts
of
interest
for
some
of
the
United
States’
top
legal
officials.Federal
judges
—
occasionally
with
family
members
or
even
their
dog
in
tow
—
traveled
to
luxury
resorts
in
locations
as
far-flung
as
London;
Palm
Beach,
Fla.;
Bar
Harbor,
Maine;
and
the
outskirts
of
Yellowstone
National
Park
for
weeklong
seminars.
The
judges
received
free
rooms,
free
meals
and
free
money
toward
travel
expenses,
together
worth
a
few
thousand
dollars.
Receiving
a
couple
thousand
dollars
in
value
is
paltry
compared
to
Alito’s
six-figure
fishing
trips
or
Clarence’s
millions
of
under-the-table
cash,
but
the
difference
is
in
degree,
not
in
kind.
These
federal
judges’
failure
to
disclose
poses
the
same
lack
of
regard
for
even
the
appearance
of
impropriety
as
a
standard
that
judges
in
positions
of
power
hold
themselves
to.
NPR’s
ProPublica-ing
unearthed
more
information:
In
nearly
40
instances,
judges
attended
events
at
luxury
resorts
but
failed
to
properly
file
a
report
within
30
days.
In
fact,
the
forms
were
uploaded
months
or
even
years
late
and
only
after
NPR
began
asking
questions.In
13
cases,
NPR
found
that
judges
failed
to
declare
the
benefits
they
received
on
their
annual
financial
disclosure
forms.
…
“That
information
loses
most
of
its
value
if
it’s
a
year
and
a
half
later,”
said
Kedric
Payne,
the
senior
director
of
ethics
at
the
nonprofit
watchdog
Campaign
Legal
Center.
“It’s
just
too
distant
from
the
potential
conflict
of
interest.”
Between
failing
to
disclose
trips
and
hearing
cases
that
they
have
a
financial
interest
in,
it
might
be
time
to
start
making
bad
apple
arguments
against
the
judiciary.
And
for
posterity’s
sake,
the
adage
goes
“one
bad
apple
can
spoil
the
barrel.”
Black
robes
lose
a
lot
of
their
significance
if
even
judges
won’t
follow
the
rules.
When
Judges
Get
Free
Trips
To
Luxury
Resorts,
Disclosure
Is
Spotty
[NPR]
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.