Supreme Court defends Samuel Alito as members of Congress demand answers after 2014 leak allegations

Top Democrats says the court’s latest response is ‘an embodiment of the problems at the court around ethics issues’ after justice is accused of leaking major contraception case in 2014

The US Supreme Court’s legal counsel has dismissed an ethics inquiry from two top Democratic members of Congress after Justice Samuel Alito was accused of leaking the outcome of a landmark case in 2014.

A letter from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson pressed Chief Justice John Roberts to answer questions about alleged breaches after a former anti-abortion activist with an influential lobbying group told the court that powerful donors leaked a ruling from a major contraception case after they dined with Justice Alito.

Supreme Court attorney Ethan Torrey did not answer the letter’s questions about that alleged leak or the leak of a draft opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the June decision to overturn Roe v Wade.

“There is nothing to suggest that Justice Alito’s actions violated ethical standards,” Mr Torrey wrote on 28 November.

Mr Torrey said that allegations from Rob Schenck remain “uncorroborated” and that Justice Alito did not violate the court’s ethics rules about accepting meals because Donald and Gayle Wright – whom Mr Schenk said were “star donors” to his organisation at the time – did not have a “financial interest in a matter before the Court.”

“In addition, the term ‘gift’ is defined to exclude social hospitality based on personal relationships as well as modest items, such as food and refreshments, offered as a matter of social hospitality,” according to Mr Torrey.

A previous statement from Mr Alito through the court denied “any effort” from the Wrights to extract decisions or influence the court.

The lawmakers said the response from the court is “an embodiment of the problems at the court around ethics issues.”

“Unlike all other federal courts, there is no formal process for complaints; it took a Senator’s and a Congressman’s repeated letters to galvanize a response,” they wrote in a statement on 29 November.

“Unlike all other federal courts, there is no formal process for fact-finding inquiry,” they added. “The assertions of fact by the Court’s lawyer emerge from darkness, and overlook important facts like all the contemporaneous evidence that Mr Schenck in fact knew both the outcome and author in advance and acted at that time on that knowledge. “

In June 2014, the Wrights reportedly ate a meal with Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann. One day later, Ms Wright allegedly wrote an email to Mr Schenck, telling him: “Rob, if you want some interesting news please call. No emails.”

According to The New York Times, Ms Wright then discussed the outcome of Burwell v Hobby Lobby, which marked a significant victory for Christian conservative groups.

The ruling was not publicly revealed until three weeks later.

Mr Schenck said that he relied on his advanced knowledge of the ruling to prepare public relations materials and to inform the president of Hobby Lobby, the craft store at the centre of the case.

The letter from the congressmen also urged Justice Roberts to send a representative from the court to testify to Congress about “issues related to ethics or reporting questions raised about justices’ conduct.”