Barking Up Wrong Tree on SCOTUS Recusals

Yesterday Fox News asked me to comment for this piece on the Left’s crusade to force Justice Thomas to disqualify himself when the Obamacare litigation reaches the Supreme Court. The Left’s allegations are without merit, but I mention the Fox News piece because it is fascinating to me that this specious story continues to get ink while almost none has been dedicated to the serious questions surrounding Justice Kagan’s potential recusal obligations in the same litigation. As I explained in a series of posts (here, here, and here), recently released documents make it very clear that, as then–solicitor general, Justice Kagan was involved in the legal defense of Obamacare. DOJ hasn’t exactly been volunteering documents or information, which makes it very difficult to evaluate just how involved Justice Kagan was, but that fact pattern seems quite a bit more compelling than what has been presented in the multiple rounds of stories about Justice Thomas.

Here is a tidbit for some enterprising journalist to run with. 18 U.S.C. 207 sets forth restrictions on the sort of work that “former officers, employees, and elected officials of the executive and legislative branches” can undertake after leaving the public sector. According to DOJ, under Section 207(a)(2):

You are prohibited for two years from communicating to or appearing before an employee of a Federal court or agency on behalf of another person, with the intent to influence, on a particular matter involving specific parties which you know was pending under your responsibility during your last year of government service and in which the United States is a party or has an interest. (italics mine)

Willful violation of this prohibition carries a sentence of up to five years in prison

In other words, if Justice Kagan had resigned from the solicitor general’s office and joined a law firm, she could have been imprisoned for willfully participating in the cases regarding Obamacare, simply on the basis that it “was pending under [her] responsibility during [her] last year of government service.”

I am not suggesting that this same standard should apply to Supreme Court justices, nor am I suggesting that the recusal standards that currently apply to the justices need to be revised. What I am suggesting is that it ought to at least be interesting to the press, and to members of the committees of jurisdiction in the House and the Senate, that Justice Kagan may end up participating in a case that she might have been criminally barred from touching if she had merely moved to a law firm. 

Carrie Severino — Carrie Severino is chief counsel and policy director to the Judicial Crisis Network.

Most Popular


Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More