Samuel Alito slams ProPublica as 'misleading' ahead of report alleging conflict of interest from SCOTUS bench

close

Video

Media attacks Clarence Thomas for ethics scandals

The Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Fox News congressional correspondent Aishah Hasnie discuss accusations of an ‘organized’ and ‘concerted’ effort by the left to delegitimize the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito took a preemptive strike against the left-wing nonprofit ProPublica over what he asserts is "misleading" reporting it is set to publish.

According to an editor's note attached to an op-ed he penned in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, Alito received a series of questions from ProPublica journalists on Friday, giving him a deadline that lapsed earlier in the day. 

"ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid," Alito began the op-ed. 

Alito first addressed the recusal inquiry, insisting it "would not have been required or appropriate" despite any alleged ties to the businessman and GOP mega donor. He described his relationship with Singer as having spoken to him "no more than a handful of occasions" which mostly "consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups" (with the exception of a "fishing trip 15 years ago") that avoided conversation about his businesses as well as any pending court cases. He also acknowledged the "two occasions" he was introduced by Singer at speaking engagements and the time he invited the justice to fill an "unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska." 

LEFT-WING NONPROFIT LEADS CHARGE AGAINST JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: ‘POLITICAL DRIVE-BY SHOOTING’ 

"It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially," Alito told readers. "When I reviewed the cases in question to determine whether I was required to recuse, I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review."

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito took aim at ProPublica in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool, File)

He went on to stress that Singer's name did not appear on any petitions or briefs relating to the cases the mega donor was allegedly associated with, saying "Because his name did not appear in these filings, I was unaware of his connection with any of the listed entities, and I had no good reason to be aware of that" and that the entities presented to him by ProPublica were either "limited liability corporations or limited liability partnerships," adding it would be "utterly impossible" for any Supreme Court employee to search all individuals with any financial interests towards a party in a case brought before the bench. 

Alito then addressed the alleged "gift" he received, which he said fell under the category of "personal hospitality," something that did not need to be reported according to guidelines as long as the hospitality was provided by an individual and their property and not from an organization or a corporation. 

REPORT ON CLARENCE THOMAS' TRAVEL HABITS IS 'POLITICS PLAIN AND SIMPLE': EXPERT

"This understanding of the requirement to report gifts reflected the expert judgment of the body that the Ethics in Government Act entrusts with the responsibility to administer compliance with the Act, see 5 U.S.C. App. §111(3)," Alito wrote. "When I joined the Court and until the recent amendment of the filing instructions, justices commonly interpreted this discussion of ‘hospitality’ to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts. The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so I followed what I understood to be standard practice."

He continued, "For these reasons, I did not include on my Financial Disclosure Report for 2008 either the accommodations provided by the owner of the King Salmon Lodge, who, to my knowledge, has never been involved in any matter before the Court, or the seat on the flight to Alaska."

Critics have called for ethics reform at the Supreme Court following a series of reports about the justices. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Alito detailed the three-night trip, recalling how the King Salmon Lodge was "a comfortable but rustic facility" and that the facility had since been sold and possibly renovated over the 15 years, adding "an examination of the photos and information on the lodge’s website shows that ProPublica’s portrayal is misleading."

JUSTICE THOMAS DEFENDS TRIPS TAKEN WITH ‘DEAREST FRIENDS’ AFTER REPORTS SAY HE ACCEPTED GIFTS

"As for the flight, Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer. Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me," Alito added. 

A spokesperson for ProPublica told Fox News Digital "We don't comment on unpublished stories."

Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been the subject of scrutiny from ProPublica over alleged conflicts of interest. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

ProPublica had previously published several reports alleging similar conflicts of interest against Justice Clarence Thomas. 

However, the nonprofit itself was subject to scrutiny in recent weeks following reports of "secret donors" giving the groups millions and how some of its biggest funders have also financed activist groups campaigning on investigations into Thomas and calling for his resignation. 

"ProPublica receives philanthropic support from donors of every stripe. More than 40,000 people actively fund our investigative, nonpartisan journalism. Our newsroom operates with fierce independence. No donor or board member is even aware of the subjects of our stories before they are published," ProPublica President Robin Sparkman previously told the New York Post.