April 23, 2025
Guardians of Justice: The Evolving Reputation and Ethics of the United States Supreme Court
Phil Carchman
Retired Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, the Appellate Division, and the Administrative Director of Courts
Guardians of Justice: The Evolving Reputation and Ethics of the United States Supreme Court
Phil Carchman
Retired Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, the Appellate Division, and the Administrative Director of Courts
Anne Seltzer, introducer, and Phil Carchman
Minutes of the 28th Meeting of the 83rd Year
President George Bustin called to order the 29th meeting of our 83nd year at 10:15 AM on April 23, 2025. Frances Slade led the invocation. There were 137 people present. The following guests were introduced:
Mark Holmes by John Cotton, Elizabeth Silverman and Ken Chiang by Steve Silverman, Damon Missouro and John Eori by Anders Boss, Audrey Egger by David Egger, Howard Buckwald by Helene Buckwald, Sheryl Feinstein by Richard Feinstein, and Sharon White by Russ White.
George Bustin announced next week’s speaker would be Stan Katz, Professor of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Julia Elward-Berry read the minutes of the previous meeting.
Anne Seltzer introduced our speaker, Phil Carchman, retired judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, and the Administrative Director of Courts. Judge Carchman graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and obtained his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Judge Carchman began his judicial career in 1973 when he was appointed to the part-time position of municipal court judge of Princeton Township and Princeton Borough. Subsequently appointed to higher positions by Governor Byrne (1981), Governor Kean (1985) and Governor Florio (1993), he has authored over 1200 opinions in his lengthy judicial career.
Judge Carchman began his presentation by stating that the Supreme Court is in a different place now from when he first agreed to do this talk and that its recent decisions have made the Court a lightning rod of sorts. At the same time, the justices’ ethical conduct has prompted a reevaluation in that area. This situation was further accelerated in the past four months by a series of presidential executive orders, which left people looking to the Court for decisions, and then anticipating the reaction to those decisions by the executive branch. He went on the state that he strongly believes that the Court’s ethical conduct is very important.
Outlining his presentation he promised to cover the ethical conduct of the Supreme Court through past history, steps the Court has taken to date, and finally some personal observations and at least one prediction. He posed the question “Is the conduct of today’s judges more ethically challenging than those of the past?” He answered that by saying ethical challenges are not unique to this version of the Supreme Court.
In a historical review, he credited the idea of an independent judiciary to King George III. This concept was enshrined in Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton observed that, unlike the executive branch, the Court had no army and, unlike the legislative branch, the Court has no power of the purse. Hamilton concluded that the judiciary has neither force nor will, but merely judgment. Judge Carchman cited the judgment of the Supreme Court as the key to the acceptance of their decisions. Recounting the story of baseball’s Black Sox Scandal of 1919, he detailed the appointment of Judge Kenesaw Landis as Commissioner of Baseball and how the ethical challenges of Landis’s new role pressured him into resigning his judgeship. The Landis story prompted Chief Justice Taft to call for canons of judicial conduct. The enactment of the Canons of Judicial Conduct of 1924. While establishing very detailed rules of conduct, it neglected to provide ant way of enforcement. It was not until 1990 when the Federal Judicial Conference established an enforceable Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which provided enforceable rules to apply to all federal judges and circuit court judges, although not the Supreme Court justices. Looking further back in history, Judge Carchman noted that the 1792 Congress passed a statute requiring all judges and justices must disqualify themselves in any proceeding where the judges’ impartiality may be questioned.
Judge Carchman moved on to the 1924 Canon 4, which stated that no judge or judge candidate shall engage in political activity. Yet Chief Justice Taft ran roughshod over this canon, as he was actively involved in politics and advising several presidents. Describing this behavior of a justice providing counsel to presidents as an absolute no-no, Judge Carchman went on to describe almost a dozen examples of presidents being advised by Supreme Court justices throughout history. Added to that was the case of Chief Justice John Jay, twice running for governor of New York State in the late 1700s. He was elected the second time and forced to resign his judgeship.
Judge Carchman took aim at more recent ethical behavior. He opined that Justice Abe Fortas’s role in advising President Lydon B. Johnson cost him his election to Chief Justice and ultimately led to his resignation under President Nixon. Explaining that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 included requirements for both financial disclosure and receipt of personal hospitality, he highlighted an ill-advised hunting trip for Justice Scalia with then Vice President Dick Cheney, which raised a series of ethical charges. An interview in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg criticized Presidential Candidate Donald Trump in 2016 resulted in her needing to make a public apology. Clarence Thomas, taking repeated free trips with GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, shed light on Thomas’s ethics. Lavish gifts showered on Thomas also came to light. Justice Alito was known to have gone on donor-funded fishing trips to Alaska. He also was involved in the infamous upside-down flag political protest that he and his wife shared. Judge Carchman also cited lesser ethical questions raised surrounding both Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayer. Ultimately, the decision on ethics violations by justices is left to the justice himself. The new Canons of 2023 were an attempt to fix this situation, but those canons essentially codified all the examples that have occurred over these last 30 years.
And lastly, Judge Carchman lamented that the greatest Supreme Court Justice of all time, John Marshall, should have recused himself from the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. This landmark case, which established the right of judicial review, involved the Secretary of State for John Adams, who had been at the time John Marshall.
In conclusion Judge Carchman reviewed the two points of advice that he teaches to judges:
He reinforced his belief that the Supreme Court remains the bulwark against the other two branches of government. And again, quoting Alexander Hamilton, “The people are relying on the Supreme Court using good judgment to render decisions.”
Respectfully submitted,
Larry Hans
Mark Holmes by John Cotton, Elizabeth Silverman and Ken Chiang by Steve Silverman, Damon Missouro and John Eori by Anders Boss, Audrey Egger by David Egger, Howard Buckwald by Helene Buckwald, Sheryl Feinstein by Richard Feinstein, and Sharon White by Russ White.
George Bustin announced next week’s speaker would be Stan Katz, Professor of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Julia Elward-Berry read the minutes of the previous meeting.
Anne Seltzer introduced our speaker, Phil Carchman, retired judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, and the Administrative Director of Courts. Judge Carchman graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and obtained his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Judge Carchman began his judicial career in 1973 when he was appointed to the part-time position of municipal court judge of Princeton Township and Princeton Borough. Subsequently appointed to higher positions by Governor Byrne (1981), Governor Kean (1985) and Governor Florio (1993), he has authored over 1200 opinions in his lengthy judicial career.
Judge Carchman began his presentation by stating that the Supreme Court is in a different place now from when he first agreed to do this talk and that its recent decisions have made the Court a lightning rod of sorts. At the same time, the justices’ ethical conduct has prompted a reevaluation in that area. This situation was further accelerated in the past four months by a series of presidential executive orders, which left people looking to the Court for decisions, and then anticipating the reaction to those decisions by the executive branch. He went on the state that he strongly believes that the Court’s ethical conduct is very important.
Outlining his presentation he promised to cover the ethical conduct of the Supreme Court through past history, steps the Court has taken to date, and finally some personal observations and at least one prediction. He posed the question “Is the conduct of today’s judges more ethically challenging than those of the past?” He answered that by saying ethical challenges are not unique to this version of the Supreme Court.
In a historical review, he credited the idea of an independent judiciary to King George III. This concept was enshrined in Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton observed that, unlike the executive branch, the Court had no army and, unlike the legislative branch, the Court has no power of the purse. Hamilton concluded that the judiciary has neither force nor will, but merely judgment. Judge Carchman cited the judgment of the Supreme Court as the key to the acceptance of their decisions. Recounting the story of baseball’s Black Sox Scandal of 1919, he detailed the appointment of Judge Kenesaw Landis as Commissioner of Baseball and how the ethical challenges of Landis’s new role pressured him into resigning his judgeship. The Landis story prompted Chief Justice Taft to call for canons of judicial conduct. The enactment of the Canons of Judicial Conduct of 1924. While establishing very detailed rules of conduct, it neglected to provide ant way of enforcement. It was not until 1990 when the Federal Judicial Conference established an enforceable Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which provided enforceable rules to apply to all federal judges and circuit court judges, although not the Supreme Court justices. Looking further back in history, Judge Carchman noted that the 1792 Congress passed a statute requiring all judges and justices must disqualify themselves in any proceeding where the judges’ impartiality may be questioned.
Judge Carchman moved on to the 1924 Canon 4, which stated that no judge or judge candidate shall engage in political activity. Yet Chief Justice Taft ran roughshod over this canon, as he was actively involved in politics and advising several presidents. Describing this behavior of a justice providing counsel to presidents as an absolute no-no, Judge Carchman went on to describe almost a dozen examples of presidents being advised by Supreme Court justices throughout history. Added to that was the case of Chief Justice John Jay, twice running for governor of New York State in the late 1700s. He was elected the second time and forced to resign his judgeship.
Judge Carchman took aim at more recent ethical behavior. He opined that Justice Abe Fortas’s role in advising President Lydon B. Johnson cost him his election to Chief Justice and ultimately led to his resignation under President Nixon. Explaining that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 included requirements for both financial disclosure and receipt of personal hospitality, he highlighted an ill-advised hunting trip for Justice Scalia with then Vice President Dick Cheney, which raised a series of ethical charges. An interview in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg criticized Presidential Candidate Donald Trump in 2016 resulted in her needing to make a public apology. Clarence Thomas, taking repeated free trips with GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, shed light on Thomas’s ethics. Lavish gifts showered on Thomas also came to light. Justice Alito was known to have gone on donor-funded fishing trips to Alaska. He also was involved in the infamous upside-down flag political protest that he and his wife shared. Judge Carchman also cited lesser ethical questions raised surrounding both Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayer. Ultimately, the decision on ethics violations by justices is left to the justice himself. The new Canons of 2023 were an attempt to fix this situation, but those canons essentially codified all the examples that have occurred over these last 30 years.
And lastly, Judge Carchman lamented that the greatest Supreme Court Justice of all time, John Marshall, should have recused himself from the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. This landmark case, which established the right of judicial review, involved the Secretary of State for John Adams, who had been at the time John Marshall.
In conclusion Judge Carchman reviewed the two points of advice that he teaches to judges:
- Use good judgment to avoid situations that could open the door to recusal.
- Be aware that when you become a Supreme Court Justice you will acquire many “new friends” looking to influence you.
He reinforced his belief that the Supreme Court remains the bulwark against the other two branches of government. And again, quoting Alexander Hamilton, “The people are relying on the Supreme Court using good judgment to render decisions.”
Respectfully submitted,
Larry Hans