Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts admitted a mistake yesterday. In December,
Speaker 1: Roberts took part in an argument in a patent case
Speaker 1: asking questions unaware that a company he owned stock in
Speaker 1: Thermo Fisher Scientific was the parent of a party to
Speaker 1: the case. In a letter released yesterday, the Court said
Speaker 1: Roberts had discovered the conflict and was withdrawing from the case.
Speaker 1: It's the third time in fifteen months that a justice
Speaker 1: has participated in a case while overlooking a stockholding that
Speaker 1: by law required recusal. Three Justices, Roberts, Stephen Bryer, and
Speaker 1: Sam Alito own a significant number of individual stocks, and
Speaker 1: each has now inadvertently participated in an argument. Some judicial
Speaker 1: ethesis say it's time for the justices to sell those
Speaker 1: individual shares, both to avoid mistakes and to help ensure
Speaker 1: the Court has a full bench in important business cases.
Speaker 1: With us to discuss the issue is Gabe Roth, the
Speaker 1: executive director of Fixed the Court. That's an advocacy group
Speaker 1: that favors more transparency from the nation's highest court. Gabe,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us. Um. Just start with explaining what
Speaker 1: happened here, walk us through the process, and explain in
Speaker 1: particular how John Roberts and his chambers might have missed
Speaker 1: this conflict of interest. Sure, so there was a case,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, Life Technologies versus Promeka patent case not
Speaker 1: so different from the Samsung and Apple case that that
Speaker 1: took place earlier in the term as well, and the
Speaker 1: case was argued in December. Um in the h filings
Speaker 1: that mentioned how a number of these companies have subsidiaries
Speaker 1: or are parts of other companies. But um, you know
Speaker 1: that was that was buried in the fifty one page
Speaker 1: brief by the petitioners, and it didn't It didn't happen
Speaker 1: until yesterday that that the Court and Chief Justice Roberts
Speaker 1: realized that he shouldn't have that, he shouldn't have heard
Speaker 1: that case that one of his holdings actually a company
Speaker 1: that he owns about hundred dollars worth of stocking. And
Speaker 1: um was it was a party to the case. And
Speaker 1: under federal law, if you have a potential financial outcome
Speaker 1: in a case and you're a judge or a justice,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't participate. So, you know, a little bit related.
Speaker 1: But I'm glad to say that they noticed the mistake
Speaker 1: and corrected it. Tell me something in the case of
Speaker 1: Justice Alito in the Walt Disney case, he actually cast
Speaker 1: vote in that case and he didn't catch it in time.
Speaker 1: He did, I mean, his his stock holdings were out
Speaker 1: were somewhat smaller and is actually one of his his
Speaker 1: children owned about two thousand dollars and a Disney stock
Speaker 1: And there was a case where ABC le a win
Speaker 1: against UM and you know, took about three years for
Speaker 1: for folks to figure that out. But but yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the thing is with the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: that there's no real outside or even internal within the
Speaker 1: judiciary ethics group that can really it's really looking their
Speaker 1: stock holding and that's saying that, you know, if you
Speaker 1: make a mistake, there are consequences. I mean, there's there's
Speaker 1: no consequences for for Supreme Court justices. The Scibe impeachment
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't think anyone's calling for anyone's
Speaker 1: impeachment over these issues, but I think he just raises
Speaker 1: the point that there should be some sort of internal
Speaker 1: ethics check that looks over these issues and be that
Speaker 1: the three justices that's uh, Briar, Roberts and Alito who
Speaker 1: owned individual stocks should divest from them and invest in
Speaker 1: the type of blended funds that are not likely to
Speaker 1: yield these types of conflicts we'll give. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is clearly embarrassing to the Court. No doubt that Chief
Speaker 1: Justice Whish wishes this hadn't happened, and that that he
Speaker 1: would have spotted the conflict earlier. But it tell us
Speaker 1: why it matters beyond that. I mean, in this case,
Speaker 1: he is now out of the case and it's not
Speaker 1: going to um. I don't know that there's a particular
Speaker 1: reason to think it's going to affect the outcome of
Speaker 1: the case. You know, these things happen, you know, once
Speaker 1: every so often, but given the volume of the cases
Speaker 1: that the Court here is, you know, a very small percentage.
Speaker 1: Why why does this matter? I think I think it
Speaker 1: matters because there is just a general sense of a
Speaker 1: lack of trust in government institutions nationwide. I think that's
Speaker 1: something that you know, we see that Congress has an
Speaker 1: approval rating in the teams in the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: a little higher, but not much higher. And you know,
Speaker 1: at a time where the incoming president doesn't help a
Speaker 1: lot of support nationwide despite his his his victory, and
Speaker 1: when when numbers of Congress will maybe individual districts are
Speaker 1: popular and incumbency as high as a body. It's it's
Speaker 1: not a very well respected the Supreme Court that sort
Speaker 1: of needs to be avolt in the room in DC
Speaker 1: needs to have this sense of, you know that it's
Speaker 1: a political um, which I think it's failed in doing
Speaker 1: so in recent years given some of the decisions that
Speaker 1: have come down, and also that it's involved board that
Speaker 1: there's no reason to question the partiality. I mean, so
Speaker 1: many of our institutions have broken down for for better
Speaker 1: or worse than the last few years. And the idea
Speaker 1: that that the Court, which is supposed to be this
Speaker 1: beacon of a neutrality potentially isn't um. You know that
Speaker 1: that that I think just hurts our democracy overall, and
Speaker 1: specifically the the tenure of the Chief Justice it gave.
Speaker 1: We've got about thirty seconds left, but let me just
Speaker 1: ask you. Have you seen are the justices starting to
Speaker 1: actually divest themselves of these individual stocks? I think they are.
Speaker 1: I think yeah, I think you know, Leado sold his
Speaker 1: Excen stock, Robert sold his Microsoft stock. I think that
Speaker 1: over time, while i'd rather than doing in one false loop,
Speaker 1: I think that in the last few years they picked
Speaker 1: up the pace in terms of um you know the
Speaker 1: best things from stocks that are likely to induce these conflicts. Okay,
Speaker 1: I want to thank our guest Gave Broth, executive director,
Speaker 1: Fixed the Court, a transparency group, talking about the Chief
Speaker 1: justices belated decision, our realization that he had a conflict
Speaker 1: in a in a patent case that he heard arguments
Speaker 1: in into some That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law.
Speaker 1: We'll be back tomorrow thanks to our technical director Chris
Speaker 1: tray Comey and our producer David Sutterman. You can find
Speaker 1: more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg
Speaker 1: BNA dot com, plus an invaluable website for the legal
Speaker 1: community at Big Law Business dot com. Coming up on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master and Corey Johnson.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned for that. This is Bloomberg