On Sunday, September 22, 2024, HuffPost reported that a copyright case between book publishers and the Internet Archive non-profit could raise ethics issues if heard by the Supreme Court.
The case originated in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in September in favor of publishers challenging the Internet Archive’s practice of digitally lending full copies of books without limitation. This practice expanded during the early COVID-19 pandemic through the Archive’s National Emergency Library. If appealed, the case could reach the Supreme Court.
However, six of the nine Supreme Court justices have published books or signed deals with the publishers involved – Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, and Hachette. This includes Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh. Experts note these financial ties could create conflicts of interest and recusal questions if the case reaches the high court.
The article reported there are no enforceable ethics codes requiring Supreme Court justices to recuse in cases of potential conflicts. Each justice makes their own recusal decisions according to personal judgment rather than universal rules. This could result in some justices choosing to recuse due to publisher relationships while others opt to participate, potentially causing a chaotic situation.
Gabe Roth of the judicial oversight group Fix the Court said the lack of a clear standard on where each justice stands ethically is problematic. The article detailed how justices have taken different approaches to recusal in the past involving their publishers. It also noted one factor in determining conflicts is whether financial ties to parties are ongoing or in the distant past.
The report concluded legislation has been proposed in Congress that would mandate justice recusal for six years after financial relationships, which if applied could require the recusal of five justices in this case and still leave four to hear it. However, recusal remains a decision for each individual justice under current Supreme Court rules and practices.
Source: HuffPost
