Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito said that a controversial fishing trip he took in 2008 with billionaire Paul Singer didn’t need to be disclosed, and in fact, saved the United States money.
Alito wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed in response to a ProPublica report that slammed the justice for not recusing himself from cases involving Singer following a fishing trip to Alaska with the billionaire. He was also accused of not disclosing the trip as a gift. Justices are required to report gifts costing more than $415, however there are exceptions for “personal hospitality.”
ProPublica alleged that Alito was flown to Alaska on Singer’s private jet, which the outlet says would have cost over $100,000 if Alito had charted the plane himself.
The justice says this is a misrepresentation of the situation. Alito says that he was asked to join the trip as there was an open seat on the plane, and so Singer’s cost would have been the same whether or not Alito was there.
“Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me,” Alito wrote.
When a Supreme Court Justice takes a domestic trip, the United States Marshal Service provides security, but only if they’re asked, according to USMS policy via advocacy group Fix the Court. The costs for USMS security is generally reimbursed t0 the agency by the judiciary.
Alito argued there was no need to disclose the gift since his presence on the trip didn’t cost Singer any additional funds, and that the food and accomodations at the King Salmon Lodge, provided by the owner of the venue, did not reach disclosure levels.
“I stayed for three nights in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge, which was a comfortable but rustic facility. As I recall, the meals were homestyle fare. I cannot recall whether the group at the lodge, about 20 people, was served wine, but if there was wine it was certainly not wine that costs $1,000,” Alito wrote.
Alito also addressed the argument that he should have recused himself on cases involving Singer. He said that prior to the trip, his staff checked through the pending cases, and Singer’s name did not come up. In one case, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., though Singer was the founder and CEO of NML Capital, Alito says his name didn’t appear in any of the filed documents, and thus, Alito didn’t know.
Alito also argued that despite the trip, he was not close with Singer at all.
“My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court,” Alito wrote.
In a timeline from ProPublica, NML Capital first asked the Supreme Court to become involved in the case in May 2007, which the court declined; the fishing trip was a little over a year later. In the following two years, Singer introduced Alito at two events.
Meanwhile, in December 2009, seven of eight additional requests for the Supreme Court to step in to the case were turned down, and in 2014, the remaining appeal was ruled on. The Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. case was decided in favor of NML Capital in a 7-1 decision, led by Justice Antonin Scalia; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only dissent.