Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez said congressional investigations into Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. over alleged ethics violations will have to wait until Democrats take control of the House.
She said the House Oversight Committee had preliminary reports that suggested he received private jet tickets and seats “and things like that.”
The New York progressive lawmaker appeared to be referencing a public report last year that Justice Alito accepted an invitation on a private plane to a fishing trip in Alaska years ago.
“We still have to dig into that element,” the New York Democrat told reporters on Tuesday. “We currently have a Republican majority in the House. So unfortunately, we have to wait until the Democrats take over.”
Her comments come after fellow Democrats have called for Justice Alito to recuse from cases currently pending before the high court and for him to be censured after it was reported last week that he flew an upside-down U.S. flag outside his Virginia house in 2021.
Rep. Steve Cohen, a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a resolution on Tuesday to censure the Bush appointee over the flag display.
The Tennessee Democrat says Justice Alito breached judicial ethics when he flew the upside-down flag outside his home following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, suggesting it was a public display of political activity.
His censure resolution also demands that the justice recuse from any case related to the 2020 election.
It’s the latest call for recusal after Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the justice must recuse from former President Trump’s case for immunity from criminal prosecution over his contest of the 2020 election results.
The New York Times reported last week that Justice Alito flew the U.S. flag upside down at his house, as seen in a Jan. 17 photograph. That display became a symbol of Mr. Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement in 2020, according to the newspaper.
Justice Alito told the newspaper that he wasn’t responsible for the flag.
“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” he said. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”
The paper included an image of the flag.
The high court is weighing two major disputes this term over whether Mr. Trump is immune from charges stemming from his contest of the 2020 election results and also another dispute over an obstruction charge facing hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, including Mr. Trump.
Those opinions are expected to come by the end of June.
It’s one of the latest reports suggesting ethical concerns surrounding some of the justices.
ProPublica published a series of articles about Justice Clarence Thomas last year, suggesting he received luxury trips and gifts from a GOP megadonor without reporting them.
Justice Thomas has denied any wrongdoing.
ProPublica also targeted Justice Alito, but he beat the outlet to the punch last summer, publishing an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal rebutting a then-unpublished article accusing him of ethics violations.
The justice accused the outlet of misleading readers in an article about his ties to Paul Singer, a billionaire hedge-fund manager.
“ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused [myself] 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 Disclosure Report. Neither charge is valid,” Justice Alito wrote.
The justice said in the op-ed that he was not required to be recused from legal battles involving any of Mr. Singer‘s entities because he did not know of the connection — and had met Mr. Singer only a few times anyway.
The justice noted he also did not reveal details of a fishing trip to Alaska more than a decade ago, to which he flew in Mr. Singer’s private plane. Justice Alito said he was offered what he believed would have been an otherwise vacant position.
He noted financial reporting requirements at the time were not believed to require the disclosure of social events as “reportable gifts.”
