All posts tagged: Justice Elena Kagan

The Hot Potato of Trump’s Disqualification

The Hot Potato of Trump’s Disqualification

Published by skeptic

It just doesn’t know how. Illustration by The Atlantic. Source: Alex Wong / Getty. February 8, 2024, 4:25 PM ET Two things seemed clear after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, the case concerning whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment bars Donald Trump from the presidency as an insurrectionist. First, most of the justices want to rule in Trump’s favor. Second, they’re struggling to figure out how to do so. Maybe Section 3 doesn’t apply to the presidency per se, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson said—and perhaps, along those same lines, it doesn’t prohibit oath-breaking former presidents from holding future office either? Or perhaps, Justice Samuel Alito pondered, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits insurrectionists from holding office, but not from running for it? Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed enamored of the idea that the amendment doesn’t allow states to disqualify candidates for federal office—as Colorado did here—without Congress first giving the go-ahead. In a related line of inquiry, which the justices seemed to coalesce around as arguments went on, Chief …

What the Supreme Court’s New Ethics Code Lacks

What the Supreme Court’s New Ethics Code Lacks

Published by skeptic

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. The Supreme Court’s new ethics code is a nod at the public pressure the court is facing. Beyond that, it will do little to change the justices’ behavior. First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic: An Unstable Structure Don’t worry, the Supreme Court said to America yesterday. Though it may not be enforceable, the Court at least has a formal code of conduct now. The Court has been facing an onslaught of public pressure after reports that justices, particularly Clarence Thomas, had engaged in behavior that an average person could deem improper for representatives of the highest court in the land, such as receiving undisclosed gifts from wealthy conservatives. This code, the first in the Court’s history, is signed by all nine justices, and lays out “rules and principles” for the justices’ behavior. Its publication is an …

Supreme Court Ethics in a Populist Age

Supreme Court Ethics in a Populist Age

Published by skeptic

The contemporary ethical standards that many Americans want to see the Supreme Court adhere to are exactly that—contemporary. Throughout the Court’s long history, justices have had conflicts of interest that we would find unacceptable today. And in the past, people didn’t seem to mind quite so much. In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote the Court’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison, should have recused himself by contemporary standards. The case concerned the validity of judicial commissions that he had himself signed and sealed, and that his brother James Marshall had been charged with delivering. But Chief Justice Marshall didn’t recuse himself—and nobody objected at the time. In 1972, Chief Justice Warren Burger spoke by telephone with President Richard Nixon about cases and issues that were or could come before the Court, including school busing and obscenity. The news became public in 1981, while Burger was still chief justice—and was met with a relative shrug. Nor are potential financial conflicts anything new. The justices have long benefited from the generosity of rich friends, which …