(Headline USA) Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is facing an ethics investigation from the Judicial Conference over allegations that she failed to include her husband’s income in financial disclosures.
In December, the Center for Renewing America filed a complaint with the Judicial Conference, which serves as the governing body of all federal courts and their judges, alleging that Jackson “willfully failed to disclose” required information about her husband’s consulting income for more than a decade.
The Financial Disclosers Committee for the Judicial Conference has since taken up the complaint for official review, according to Fox News. Depending on what the committee finds, the Judicial Conference could then refer the potential ethics violation to Attorney General Merrick Garland for possible civil enforcement.
“We are hopeful that the Judicial Conference takes a long, hard look at the ethics concerns surrounding Justice Jackson and ensures there is not a double standard for justices,” said Russ Vought, a former senior Trump administration official and president of CRA, in a statement.
Vought also blasted the Left for failing to hold Jackson to account earlier, noting that leftist organizations have “made it a sport” to find ethical qualms with conservative justices such as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“They’ve turned a blind eye to actual indiscretions and appearances of corruption actively happening,” he said.
The report by the CRA found that Jackson “repeatedly failed” to include medical malpractice consulting fees earned by her husband.
She even admitted to this during her confirmation process, saying at the time that “some of [her] previously filed reports inadvertently omitted” her husband’s income.
However, since then, “Jackson has not even attempted to list the years for which her previously filed disclosures omitted her husband’s consulting income,” according to the complaint.
“Instead, in her admission of omissions on her 2020 amended disclosure form (filed in 2022), Justice Jackson provided only the vague statement that ‘some’ of those past disclosures contained material omissions,” it said.
