Durbin asks Roberts to testify on Supreme Court ethics flaps

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin is escalating Democrats’ drive for ethics reforms at the Supreme Court by inviting Chief Justice John Roberts to testify before Congress next month.

In the wake of recent reports about undisclosed real estate transactions and expense-paid luxury trips taken by Justice Clarence Thomas, Durbin called on Roberts to appear before the committee on May 2, saying his testimony on ethics issues would improve public faith in the high court.

“There has been a steady stream of revelations regarding Justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and, indeed, of public servants generally,” the Illinois Democrat wrote in a one-page letter to Roberts. “These problems were already apparent back in 2011, and the Court’s decade-long failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence. The status quo is no longer tenable.”

“The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court’s
ethical standards. I invite you to join it,” Durbin added.

A Supreme Court spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry about whether Roberts plans to accept Durbin’s invitation.

Asked by reporters Thursday if he planned a subpoena for the chief justice if he does not agree to appear voluntarily, Durbin appeared to allude to Democrats’ ongoing difficulties related to the absence of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a longtime Judiciary committee member who has been away from the Senate for months for medical reasons.

“It takes a majority. I don’t have a majority,” Durbin said bluntly, adding that he was hopeful Roberts would agree. “There’s been no discussion of subpoenas for anyone at this point.”

One Republican on the panel, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, expressed concern that a hearing with Roberts could wind up in a slugfest over issues unrelated to ethics practices at the court.

“You could quickly see it become a political show from either end of the spectrum,” Tillis said. “We could see it devolve into something that had nothing to do with the subject matter.”

Tillis also said the justices should be the ones deciding how to address ethics complaints and he questioned whether the high court’s standing with the public has, in fact, eroded.

“They themselves need to decide what, if anything, they need to do to restore any confidence that they think that they’ve lost, if in fact they think they’ve lost it,” Tillis said.

Durbin’s letter said Roberts “would not be expected to answer questions from Senators” about matters other than ethics, but it seems unlikely Durbin could prevent his colleagues from using a hearing to air such questions.

The Judiciary chair also offered an alternative, if Roberts doesn’t want to attend himself: He could send another justice in his place.

The Supreme Court is not bound by the code of ethics that applies to other federal judges and has no formal process to review ethics complaints. Roberts has said that the justices consult the ethics code for judges and also rely on various other authorities in deciding how to address ethics issues.

Democratic lawmakers have proposed imposing an ethics code and process on the Supreme Court by legislation, if the court does not craft such reforms itself.

The last appearance before a congressional committee by members of the Supreme Court came in 2019, when Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan attended a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the high court’s budget.

Kagan said at that hearing that the justices were discussing an ethics code, but in the four years since no such regime has been adopted by the high court.

Durbin noted in his letter, and to reporters, that a pair of justices – Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer – testified to the Judiciary panel in 2011. “There’s precedent for this,” the senator said.

The call for Roberts to testify comes in the wake of reports by ProPublica about Thomas’ frequent vacationing, sometimes on private jets, with wealthy Texas real estate developer Harlan Crow, and about Crow’s purchase of Thomas’ childhood home and neighboring properties.

Thomas has said in a statement that he has attempted to abide by financial disclosure requirements that apply to all federal judges and that he was advised “personal hospitality” from Crow did not have to be disclosed. Thomas, the court’s oldest and longest-serving justice, has not commented on the sale of his mother’s home to Crow or why it was not reported.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misidentified which state Sen. Thom Tillis is from. He is from North Carolina.

Related articles

MAGA prosecutor won’t explain scrubbed sentencing memo for rioter who threatened Obama



President Donald Trump's federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., refused to answer questions from reporters on why the Justice Department whitewashed a sentencing memo for a violent Jan. 6 rioter who was charged for an incident in which he livestreamed himself near former President Barack Obama's house with a stash of illegal guns and ammunition.

Tyler Taranto, during his heavily armed stream in 2023, also made a fake bomb threat against a government building. He separately received a pardon for his involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"US Atty Jeanine Pirro was just asked about the scrubbing of sentencing memo (of Jan 6 references) in Taylor Taranto case. Why did it happen? She wouldn't answer directly... and said the 'papers speak for themselves,'" stated CBS News' Scott MacFarlane on Thursday.

Additionally, Pirro, a former far-right Fox News personality who has pushed election conspiracy theories, would not comment on why a pair of prosecutors who worked on the memo were placed on leave.

The redoing of the sentencing memo, which argued Taranto receive 27 months in prison, raised alarm bells among legal experts, as not only did the new version remove all references to him being a January 6 rioter, it also removed references to the fact that Trump posted the location of Obama's home on Truth Social shortly before Taranto's threatening stunt.

On Thursday, a judge sentenced Taranto to 21 months, which works out to "time served," as well as three years' supervised release.

JUST IN: Despite Complications from Government Shutdown, Fed Cuts Rates to Lowest Level in Three Years

The Federal Reserve dropped interest rates again Wednesday, despite complications caused by a data blackout during the government shutdown.

The post JUST IN: Despite Complications from Government Shutdown, Fed Cuts Rates to Lowest Level in Three Years first appeared on Mediaite.

Seeing the National Guard on our streets is bad — but we must beware Trump’s Plan B



I saw some of my former Naval War College colleagues at the recent No Kings rally in Providence. Given that National Guard troops and protestors had clashed in Los Angeles at an earlier June rally protesting ICE raids, we wondered whether we would see National Guard troops as we marched, where they would be from, and their mission? We didn’t. That doesn’t mean, however, that there is no need for concern about the future.

The National Guard is unique to the U.S. military given it is under the authority of both state governors and the federal government and has both a domestic and federal mission. Governors can call up the National Guard when states have a crisis, either a natural disaster or a human-made one. Federal authorities can call on the National Guard for overseas deployment and to enforce federal law.

President Dwight Eisenhower used both federalized National Guard units and regular U.S. Army units to enforce desegregation laws in Arkansas in 1957. But using military troops to intimidate citizens and support partisan politics, especially by bringing National Guard units from other states has never been, and should never be, part of its mission.

But that’s what is happening now.

A host of Democratic U.S. senators, led by Dick Durbin of Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has called for an inquiry into the Trump administration’s recent domestic deployment of active-duty and National Guard troops to Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Memphis, Tennessee.

In an Oct. 17 letter to the Defense Department’s Inspector General, the senators challenge the legality of the domestic troop deployment and charge that it undermines military readiness and politicizes the nation’s military.

Ostensibly, the troops have been sent to cities “overrun” with crime. Yet data shows that has not been the case. Troops have been sent to largely Democratic-run cities in Democratic-led states.

The case for political theater being the real reason behind the deployment certainly was strengthened when largely Republican Mississippi sent troops to Washington D.C., even though crime in Mississippi cities like Jackson is higher than in D.C. Additionally, there is an even more dangerous purpose to the troop presence — that of normalizing the idea of troops on the streets, a key facet of authoritarian rule.

There are fundamental differences in training and mission between military troops and civilian law enforcement, with troop presence raising the potential for escalation and excessive force, and the erosion of both civil liberties and military readiness.

Troop deployments have hit some stumbling blocks. Judges, including those appointed by President Donald Trump, have in cases like Portland impeded administration attempts to send troops. Mayors and governors, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, have pushed back as well.

While the Trump administration has shown its willingness to ignore the law, it has also shown a significant ability to come up with a “Plan B.” In this case, Plan B, used by many past dictators, is likely the utilization of private military companies (PMC).

Countries have used these mercenary organizations to advance strategic goals abroad in many instances. Though the Wagner Group, fully funded by the Kremlin, was disbanded after a rebellion against the regular Russian military in 2023, Vladimir Putin continues to use PMCs to advance strategic goals in Ukraine and other regions of the world wrapped in a cloak of plausible deniability. Nigeria has used them internally to fight Boko Haram. The United States used Blackwater in Afghanistan in the early days after 9/11. Overall, the use of PMCs abroad is highly controversial as it involves complex tradeoffs between flexibility, expertise and need with considerable risks to accountability, ethics and long-term stability.

Domestically, the use of PMCs offer leaders facing unrest the advantage of creating and operating in legal “gray zones.” Leaders not confident of the loyalty of a country’s armed forces have resorted to these kinds of private armies. Adolf Hitler relied on his paramilitary storm troopers, or “brown shirts” to create and use violence and intimidation against Jews and perceived political opponents. Similarly, Benito Mussolini’s “black shirts,” Serbian paramilitaries, and PMCs in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya served similar purposes.

President Donald Trump has said he is “open” to the idea of using PMCs to help deport undocumented immigrants. He has militarized Homeland Security agents to send to Portland, evidencing his willingness to circumvent legal challenges. And perhaps most glaringly, poorly qualified and trained masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are already terrorizing American cities.

At the No Kings rally in Providence my former colleagues and I did see a man in an unfamiliar uniform — with a gun and handcuffs — standing alone on the sidewalk along the march path. He wasn’t doing anything threatening, just watching. In the past, he might not have even been noticed.

But that day he was. Some people even waved to him. Protestors are not yet intimidated, but they are wary, and rightfully so.

Be aware, America. They have a Plan B.

  • Joan Johnson-Freese of Newport is professor emeritus of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and a Senior Fellow at Women in International Security. She earned a Ph.D. in international relations and affairs from Kent State University. She is an adjunct Government Department faculty member at Harvard Extension and Summer Schools, teaching courses on women, peace & security, grand strategy & U.S. national security and leadership. Her book, “Leadership in War & Peace: Masculine & Feminine,” was released in March 2025 from Routledge. Her website is joanjohnsonfreese.com.