Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
(Reuters) -A judicial policymaking body on Thursday rejected a request by Democratic lawmakers to refer conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice to ...
U.S. Supreme Court justices reported receiving gifts including a stay in a Bali hotel and tickets to a Beyoncé concert, as well as nearly $1.6 million in book advances and royalties in annual ...
U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges on lower courts do not have to publicly disclose when they dine or stay at someone's personal residence, even one owned by a business entity, under a ...
The Supreme Court adopted its first code of ethics in 2023 in the face of sustained criticism, though the new code still lacks a means of enforcement. It’s unclear whether the law allows the U.S. Judicial Conference to make a criminal referral regarding a Supreme Court justice, U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad wrote.
The code was issued during a time when the court faced great criticism, especially around the conduct of justice Clarence Thomas.It was shown that he received undisclosed gifts of luxury travel [2] and that he was involved with cases that were related to the political activities of his wife, Ginni Thomas, who worked to overturn the 2020 election results in the weeks leading up to the January 6 ...
According to the outlet, Cannon did not disclose that she attended a May 2023 banquet honoring the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the Law and Economics Center at George Mason ...
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday he was not required to disclose the many trips he and his wife took that were paid for by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. Describing Crow and ...
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]