Justice Alito pre-emptively debunks newest hit piece accusing him of legal, ethical violations: 'Neither charge is valid'

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito preventively responded to a ProPublica hit piece on Tuesday accusing him of ethical improprieties.

What does the report allege?

The crux of the story is that Paul Singer, a billionaire hedge fund manager who financially supports Republican politics, flew Alito to Alaska in 2008 for a fishing trip.

But, according to ProPublica, Alito did not report the trip on his annual financial disclosure report that year. Using vague language that absolves ProPublica of making a direct accusation, the outlet claimed the omission "appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts."

Additionally, ProPublica noted the Supreme Court has reviewed multiple cases in which Singer's hedge fund had an interest, but Alito never recused himself from the cases.

ProPublica even scandalized the fact that Alito voted in Singer's favor in one prominent case, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital. The decision in that case was a 7–1 slam-dunk majority in Singer's favor.

What did Alito say?

Alito took the unusual step of pre-emptively responding to the story about five hours before it was published.

"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," explained Alito in a Wall Street Journal essay.

"Neither charge is valid," he declared.

On the charge of recusal

On the first charge, Alito explained that recusal would have been unnecessary because his relationship with Singer — barely acquaintances — does not meet the level required for recusal in the ethical guidelines by which the justices abide.

"My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups," Alito explained. "On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court.

"And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska," he continued. "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."

Regarding court review, Alito explained that he has voted "on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions" throughout his tenure on the high court — and Singer's name was not listed as a party on any of the certiorari petitions.

To ensure that I am not required to recuse, multiple members of my staff carefully check the names of the parties in each case and any other entities listed in the corporate disclosure statement required by our rules. See Supreme Court Rule 29.6. Mr. Singer was not listed as a party in any of the cases listed by ProPublica. Nor did his name appear in any of the corporate disclosure statements or the certiorari petitions or briefs in opposition to certiorari.

In the one case in which review was granted, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842, Mr. Singer’s name did not appear in either the certiorari petition, the brief in opposition, or the merits briefs. 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.

On the charge of not reporting

According to Alito, he did not report the trip, or flying on Singer's plane, because "until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that 'personal hospitality need not be reported.'"

"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," Alito explained. "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."

Alito explained that he was a last-minute addition to the fishing trip and a third party offered him the seat on Singer's plane, which would have been vacant otherwise.

"It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer," Alito said. "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."

A spokesperson for Singer similarly told ProPublica that Singer did not know beforehand that Alito was going on the trip and Singer has "never discussed his business interests" with Alito.