Chief Justice Sold AT&T Shares After Ruling In Co.'s Case

[CaptQuint]

Law360, Washington (June 13, 2019, 7:19 PM EDT) -- Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. sold at least $100,000 in AT&T stock in November, shortly after a judicial watchdog said he should have recused himself in a case involving the telecom and while AT&T's merger with Time Warner was pending before the D.C. Circuit, according to financial disclosures released Thursday.


The chief justice sold the stocks on Nov. 15 for a gain of at least $100,000, just eight days after watchdog group Fix The Court discovered the conflict and criticized him for not recusing himself from voting on the customers' appeal.

In response to Thursday's disclosure about the sale, Fix The Court's Executive Director Gabe Roth said Justice Roberts' slip-up possibly violated the federal recusal statute, and Roth continued his call for the justices to divest themselves of individual stocks.

"It should not take a mistake, or near-mistake, to convince a justice that he should not hold shares in a company that frequently comes before the court," Roth said Thursday. "Such holdings often lead to recusals, meaning the potential for a 4-4 tie, which undermines the judiciary's ability to function properly."

Roth said that, "though they're trending in the right direction, selling their shares bit by bit," Justices Roberts, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito should follow their colleagues' example and refrain from owning these shares.

Justice Roberts' transaction also came as the U.S. Department of Justice was appealing its unsuccessful attempt to block AT&T's $85.4 billion purchase of Time Warner for alleged competitive harm. The DOJ ended up losing in the D.C. Circuit in February, and decided not to pursue it to the Supreme Court.

Justice Roberts' stock sale was listed among a cache of financial disclosures for 2018 given to reporters by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and posted online Thursday.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh reported substantially less in investments than other members of the court, identifying only Bank of America accounts worth up to $50,000 and a 401(k) plan with $15,000 or less in funds. By comparison, Justice Breyer listed dozens of holdings that, based on the value ranges contained in his disclosure, are worth between $6.2 million and $16.1 million.

The disclosures reveal the outside income of the justices, who already pull in a salary of about $214,000 from their positions on the court, with the exception of Justice Roberts, who makes just shy of $224,000.

Justice Neil Gorsuch more than doubled his salary with $225,000 from Penguin Random House LLC, which is publishing his upcoming book, "A Republic, If You Can Keep It," that will feature "events that have shaped his life … from his upbringing in Colorado to his Supreme Court confirmation process."

Penguin Random House — apparently the publisher of choice for members of the court — also paid $33,000 in royalties to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has written various dual-language children's books and a memoir, "My Beloved World." It also paid just under $5,000 to Justice Breyer, who has three books with Penguin Random House.

Justice Clarence Thomas earned a combined $28,000 teaching at the University of Kansas School of Law, George Washington University School of Law and the University of Georgia School of Law. Before he was confirmed, Justice Kavanaugh made $27,765 from Harvard Law School. Harvard also paid Justice Elena Kagan $17,500 over the period. Justice Gorsuch earned $13,250 in income from George Mason University.

Justice Gorsuch also received a watercolor painting from Judge Terrence L. O'Brien, his former colleague on the Tenth Circuit.

The reports also reflect the justices' busy schedule. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who turned 86 in March, listed 14 different events in multiple cities and countries for which she was provided transportation, lodging and food by the organizers. Two of those, like the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, were related to a pair of films about her — the CNN Films documentary "RBG" and a Hollywood biopic called "On The Basis Of Sex."

Roth raised concerns over the combined 64 free trips that the justices took during the year.

"Once again, the justices took dozens of trips across the country and around the world last year in which a third party paid for their dining, airfare and accommodations, with the public left in the dark about how lavish these trips may have been," Roth said.

"Just as top officials in other branches are required to list the market value of their food, flights and hotels when they travel on someone else's dime, the justices should have a similar requirement, so that the public can better determine whether an outside source is attempting to buy influence."

--Additional reporting by Bryan Koenig and Christopher Crosby. Editing by Nicole Bleier.

https://www.law360.com/legalethics/arti ... -co-s-case

[CaptQuint]

Justice Roberts' stock sale was listed among a cache of financial disclosures for 2018 given to reporters by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and posted online Thursday.

So he didnt rule on it

Next?

"It should not take a mistake, or near-mistake, to convince a justice that he should not hold shares in a company that frequently comes before the court," Roth said Thursday. "Such holdings often lead to recusals, meaning the potential for a 4-4 tie, which undermines the judiciary's ability to function properly."

[CaptQuint]

So he should divest all his shares or recuse himself because maybe one day he might have to hear a case?

And oh, the thread title is very misleading

The title is unaltered by me. An AT&T case was in the bullpen and a company as big as that is likely to appear before them and The Chief Justice owned a quarter of million in AT&T stocks

[beagleboy]

Jesus this is stupid.

[CaptQuint]

Only dems should be forced to operate in an ethical manner Sin Republicans

[CaptQuint]

After Donald Trump was elected U.S. President, his Justice Department filed a lawsuit against AT&T and Time Warner to block the proposed merger. That lawsuit landed in the courtroom of Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, in a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. After a six-week trial, Judge Leon sided with AT&T and Time Warner on Jun. 12, 2018, giving the companies a green light to complete their merger. Three days later on Jun. 15, 2018, AT&T announced that it had acquired Time Warner.

For a brief two months, the legal dust seemed to have settled — that is, until the DOJ decided to appeal to the U.S. District Court's decision on Aug. 6, 2018. Now, representatives from AT&T, Time Warner, and the DOJ are making their cases before a three-panel judge in the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals. To be clear, the merger has already happened. That means the DOJ is effectively asking the D.C. Court of Appeals to "unmerge" the two companies seven months after they combined operations.

[FSchmertz]

Jesus this is stupid.

I don't know about anyone else, but the funds etc I'm invested in buy stocks who's identity I'm pretty much unaware of.

Do all judges and officials have to divest themselves of all investments?

I understand many put them in blind trusts while they're in office.

Though I'm really "blind" because it's not necessary for me to find out.

P.S. And yes, beagle and I agree on something

[CaptQuint]

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.


https://www.uscourts.gov/federal-court-finder/

[beagleboy]

Jesus this is stupid.

I don't know about anyone else, but the funds etc I'm invested in buy stocks who's identity I'm pretty much unaware of.

Do all judges and officials have to divest themselves of all investments?

I understand many put them in blind trusts while they're in office.

Though I'm really "blind" because it's not necessary for me to find out.

P.S. And yes, beagle and I agree on something

I'd suspect most own mutual funds, ETFs and privately managed accounts using personal money managers. They aren't required to divest themselves of their investments but they aren't supposed to make a ruling if they own it directly. He wasn't required to make a ruling and it was never in serious doubt and if the Supreme Court had been asked to rule, he would have recused himself. Drama queens will always find something to be outraged by.

I'd imagine all their investment accounts are monitored for this sort of thing. Mine are so that I don't front trade clients.

[AnalHamster]

Y'all are mixing up cases, he should have recused himself from the cert decision on Marcus Roberts et al. v. AT&T Mobility and failed to. He sold his shares in AT&T after cert was denied. The merger mess is a separate case, that one was about them ripping off their customers and the usual arbitration shenanigans, like the customers couldn't use the courts but had to be bound by an arbitration decision made by the CEO's mum or some shit like that.

Maybe it's all oversights but of the 3 justices who do hold personal stocks, all have failed to recuse in cases they should have, with no sanction for a missed recusal. Doesn't seem like the most secure of safeguards. The other six use mutual funds, which is regarded as an acceptable level of conflict.