Nomination of Justice Jackson’s husband to judicial commission prompts ethics concerns: Lawyer
Supreme Court Justice’s Husband Nominated to Commission with Power to Remove Judges
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s husband has been nominated to a commission in Washington, D.C., which has the power to remove judges in the district, prompting questions by a former Trump administration attorney about whether any conflicts of interest could arise.
Jackson’s husband, Dr. Patrick Jackson, has been practicing as a gastrointestinal surgeon at Georgetown University Hospital for the past 20 years and has been the chief of general surgery at the hospital for the past nine years. But just under two years since President Joe Biden nominated his wife to the highest court, he was quietly nominated to the Washington, D.C., Judicial Disabilities and Tenure Commission, or CJDT, a role that would give him “authority” to remove judges in response to complaints.
“CJDT has the authority to remove a judge for willful misconduct in office, for willful and persistent failure to perform judicial duties, and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, or which brings the judicial office into disrepute,” according to the commission’s webpage. The full D.C. Council is scheduled to vote on Patrick Jackson’s nomination on Nov. 21.
Phil Mendelson, a Democratic councilman for the D.C. Council, nominated Patrick Jackson in part because of his wide background in medical science, a skill set that is recommended for a role that involves assessing judicial fitness. A 15-page proposal by Mendelson includes Patrick Jackson’s resume dating back to his first years at Columbia University’s medical program from 1991-1995.
The commission also has the authority to suspend or retire a judge involuntarily if its members determine that the judge suffers from a mental or physical disability that prevents or “seriously interferes” with the performance of duties, according to the CJDT’s webpage.
That could, in theory, give Patrick Jackson the opportunity to have significant influence over the fate of judges whose work may come before his wife on the Supreme Court.
Patrick Jackson’s appointment to the commission by a member of the D.C. Council could therefore put him in a position to encounter potential ethical dilemmas, according to Mark Paoletta, a former Trump administration lawyer who also works as counsel to Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni.
Paoletta also pointed out a separate issue involving Ketanji Brown Jackson’s 2022 disclosure form, which revealed that her husband received fees for “consulting on medical malpractice cases.” The disclosure did not specify which years Patrick Jackson received the payments, which is required by law.
There is also no mention of Patrick Jackson receiving payments to provide expert witness testimony or consulting on malpractice cases in Mendelson’s proposal, nor did the payments come up during Patrick Jackson’s Nov. 1 interview with the D.C. Public Oversight Roundtable, which interviews nominees ahead of their confirmation vote.
“But it’s easy to imagine that [Patrick Jackson] could provide expert witness testimony or consult on a medical malpractice case for a law firm/company (that pays him) and that firm is in fact before a judge who may be (or will be) in front of the commission he sits on,” Paoletta said, highlighting another potential ethical dilemma underlying Patrick Jackson’s appointment.
Paoletta, a staunch defender of Thomas in the wake of ProPublica’s reports about the justice’s alleged ethical improprieties, maintains that spouses of justices should be able to have their own careers free from undue scrutiny.
“I’ve advocated that Justices’ spouses should be able to have separate careers, w/ rules of recusal,” Paoletta wrote on social media.
“If this were Ginni Thomas, Jesse Barrett, Jane Roberts, media … would have already been investigating possible conflicts of interest. Or how and why this nomination occurred, and so shortly after [his] spouse was appointed to the Supreme Court,” Paoletta added.
Patrick Jackson vowed during his interview on Nov. 1 to recuse himself if any conflict arose should he be confirmed for the role.
“I can’t think of a conflict I would have in this process,” he said during the interview. “Not being a lawyer, I would never have a firm that would be represented in front of a judge that was being discussed in front of the commission.”
Patrick Jackson’s nomination to the CJDT even raised concern among progressive commentators on social media, including court watcher Noah Dahl, who is often critical of the Republican-appointed justices’ conduct. Dahl admitted Ketanji Brown Jackson could be “wading into an ethical quagmire” if the D.C. Council confirms her husband to the commission.
Spouses of Supreme Court conservative justices have been the subject of extensive media scrutiny, coinciding with an increasing focus by liberal-leaning watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers on alleged ethical lapses among conservative justices. A September 2022 report by Politico, for example, highlighted that Justice Amy Coney Barrett withheld information about her attorney husband, Jesse Barrett, such as his list of clients, making it difficult to see whether any of his clients have business before the high court.
Thomas also faced calls from progressive lawmakers, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), to resign from the high court over the fact that he didn’t recuse himself from some cases involving former President Donald Trump after revelations that his wife urged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to continue challenging the 2020 election.
Cassandra Burke Robertson, Case Western Reserve University Law School professor, told the Washington Examiner she was less convinced that Patrick Jackson’s nomination raises any direct ethical concerns because “one person isn’t making the decision about suspending a judge or taking other steps.”
“I think it probably is a little bit of whataboutism, which I’m somewhat sympathetic to because I think that a lot of people do criticize the work of justices’ spouses, depending on whether or not it’s a justice that they agree with ideologically,” Robertson said.
The Supreme Court on Monday announced it would adopt an ethics code after years of behind-the-scenes planning on how to adopt new guidelines and amid growing calls for ethical oversight. The justices have long maintained that they consult the same code of conduct for lower court judges, and they said this week that the new code of ethics would help address any “misunderstanding” by the public over their ethical obligations.
There have been no indications that the justices allowed their decisions to be compromised by outside forces or attempts to sway their rulings.
While several Democrats in Congress criticized the new code of ethics for lacking any enforcement mechanism, a justice can be impeached by a simple majority vote in the House and can be convicted by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
What steps should be taken to avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflicts of interest in the nomination of spouses of Supreme Court justices to positions of power
Has faced scrutiny for her husband’s involvement in a school that has anti-LGBTQ+ policies.
While it is important to recognize that spouses of Supreme Court justices should have their own careers and be free from undue scrutiny, it is equally important to ensure transparency and address any potential conflicts of interest. The nomination of Patrick Jackson to the CJDT raises valid concerns about possible conflicts with his wife’s role as a Supreme Court justice.
The CJDT is a commission with the authority to remove judges, making it a powerful entity that could directly impact the work of judges, including Supreme Court Justices. Given Patrick Jackson’s medical background, it is understandable that he was nominated for his expertise in assessing judicial fitness. However, his appointment to this commission while his wife serves on the Supreme Court raises questions about potential conflicts and ethical dilemmas.
Mark Paoletta, a former Trump administration lawyer, pointed out the issue of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s husband receiving fees for consulting on medical malpractice cases. The lack of clarity regarding the specific years when these payments took place raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and compliance with legal requirements. Additionally, there is no mention of these payments in Patrick Jackson’s nomination proposal or during his interview with the D.C. Public Oversight Roundtable.
Paoletta rightly brings attention to the fact that if the situation were reversed, with the spouse of a conservative justice nominated to a commission, media outlets would likely be investigating possible conflicts of interest. The potential ethical dilemmas surrounding Patrick Jackson’s appointment should not be overlooked or dismissed.
It is essential to approach this issue with fairness, transparency, and a commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. If Patrick Jackson is confirmed for the role, it will be crucial for him to uphold his vow to recuse himself in case of conflicts and to navigate the commission’s work with utmost professionalism and ethical responsibility.
Furthermore, the nomination of spouses of Supreme Court justices to commissions and other positions of power should be carefully considered to avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflicts of interest. While it is important to respect the independence and careers of justices’ spouses, it is equally important to maintain public trust in the judicial system and ensure the absence of any undue influence.
The scrutiny faced by spouses of conservative justices highlights the need for consistent and unbiased examination of potential conflicts of interest across the political spectrum. Only through comprehensive scrutiny and adherence to ethical standards can we preserve the integrity and impartiality of our judicial system.
Overall, the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s husband to the CJDT warrants thoughtful consideration and examination of potential conflicts of interest. Transparency, ethical responsibility, and
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...