Ketanji Brown Jackson Slapped With Ethics Complaint Over Husband’s Income - Conservative Nation
Connect with us

Latest News

Ketanji Brown Jackson Slapped With Ethics Complaint Over Husband’s Income



A watchdog group has accused liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of ethics violations in connection with failure to report her husband’s income on disclosure forms.

Fox News reported that the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a conservative group led by former senior Trump White House official Russ Vought, accused Jackson of “willfully” omitting pertinent income information.

Vought previously led the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under former President Trump. He maintains that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires Justice Jackson to identify the “source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceeds $1,000.”

In a letter to the Judicial Conference, the CRA accused Jackson of not properly reporting “her husband’s malpractice consulting income for more than a decade.”

Accordingly, the CRA is calling for the Judicial Conference to refer ethics violations complaints to Attorney General Merrick Garland for investigation and possible reprimand.

CRA’s letter reminded Judicial Conference leaders that federal law requires judges to disclose the “source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceeds $1,000 … except … if the spouse is self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession needs to be reported.”

During the nomination process to her appointment to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Jackson disclosed that two medical malpractice consulting clients paid her husband, Dr. Patrick Jackson, more than $1,000 in 2011 for services rendered.

The CRA noted that in subsequent filings, however, Jackson “repeatedly failed to disclose that her husband received income from medical malpractice consulting fees.”

The letter stipulates: “We know this by Justice Jackson’s own admission in her amended disclosure form for 2020, filed when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, that ‘some of my previously filed reports inadvertently omitted’ her husband’s income from ‘consulting on medical malpractice cases.’”

Vought argues that since Justice Jackson was aware of reporting requirements in 2012, and listed specific sources of income for 2011 but not in subsequent filings, her actions reflect a “willful” violation of the law.

Speaking to Fox News, Vought said: “Jackson has not even attempted to list the years for which her previously filed disclosures omitted her husband’s consulting income. Instead, in her admission of omissions on her 2020 amended disclosure form (filed in 2022), Justice Jackson provided only the vague statement that ‘some’ of those past disclosures contained material omissions.”

The CRA’s letter also suggests Justice Jackson may have failed to report private funding sources supporting her “massive investiture celebration at the Library of Congress,” a serious charge.

In 2022, following her appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Library of Congress hosted a notable event featuring multiple musicians, speakers and groups. Questions remain regarding who funded the event.

Federal law states that any “gift” exceeding $415 must be disclosed. Jackson did not disclose receiving any “gift” associated with the Library of Congress event.

Vought claims the elaborate Library of Congress celebration constitutes a ‘gift’ under EIGA/federal guidelines and argues: “Justice Jackson thus cannot claim ignorance of EIGA’s gift disclosure requirements, and there is no serious argument that this ‘massive event featuring performances by several musicians and groups’ celebrating her investiture is not a ‘thing of value.’”

Vought also criticized Justice Jackson’s “disturbing trend of not reporting material sources of income and gifts,” noting that she has actively “shielded potential conflicts of interest from public scrutiny and undermined the ability of the public, outside watchdog groups, and parties to scrutinize her recusal decisions.”

Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Continue Reading