[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




   UNDUE INFLUENCE: OPERATION HIGHER COURT AND POLITICKING AT SCOTUS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                       THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-77

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary



                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
               
               

               Available via: http://Judiciary.house.gov





                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

50-357                    WASHINGTON : 2023









                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

          AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director

                                 ------                                







                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                       Thursday, December 8, 2022

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio...............................     3
The Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Georia............     5
The Honorable Darrell Issa, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of California.........................     6

                               WITNESSES

Reverend Robert Schenck, President, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute
  Oral Testimony.................................................     8
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11
Caroline Fredrickson, Georgetown University Law Center
  Oral Testimony.................................................    30
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    32
Mark Paoletta, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
  Oral Testimony.................................................    40
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    42
Donald Sherman, Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel, Citizens 
  for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
  Oral Testimony.................................................    50
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    52

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the 
  record
  A letters from Reverend Dr. Myke D. Crowder, Senior Pastor of 
    Christian Life Center in Layton, Utah, about Mr. Schenck.....    94
  Statement from Father Frank Pavone, National Director of 
    Priests for Life.............................................    95
Materials submitted by the Honorable Dan Bishop, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of North Carolina, 
  for the record
  An article entitled, ``Left's Attack on the Conservative 
    Justices Is Attempt to Delegitimize Supreme Court,'' The 
    Daily Signal.................................................   100
  An article entitled, ``New York Times Knowingly Printed False 
    Smear Of Justice Thomas' Wife,'' The Federalist..............   103
  An article entitled, ``Opinion | The Hypocrisy of Supreme Court 
    Ethics Journalism,'' Wall Street Journal.....................   106
  An article entitled, ``The New Yorker Lies Again About Clarence 
    Thomas And His Wife,'' The Federalist........................   109
  An article entitled, ``PAOLETTA: Leftist Tantrum Targets 
    Spouses In Latest Attack To Undermine SCOTUS' Legitimacy,'' 
    Daily Caller.................................................   115
A document from the confirmation hearings of Justice Kavanaugh, 
  Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, submitted by the Honorable 
  Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Texas, for the record........................   122
Materials submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, 
  Jr., a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State 
  of Georgia, for the record
  A letter dated December 8, 2022 from Demand Justice and a 
    coalition of over 80 national, State, and local 
    organizations,...............................................   136
  Statement from the Project On Government Oversight (POGO)......   141
  Statement from the NARAL Pro-Choice America....................   151
  Statement from the Interfaith Alliance Foundation..............   154
  Statement from the Alliance for Justice........................   158
  Statement from Russ Feingold, President of the American 
    Constitution Society.........................................   161
  Statement from Gabe Roth, Executive Director of Fix the Court..   168
Materials submitted by the Honorable Dan Bishop, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of North Carolina, 
  for the record
  An article entitled, ``The Baseless `Recusal' Attack on 
    Clarence Thomas | Opinion,'' News Week.......................   176
  An article entitled, ``Forty Years of Attacks and Slurs Against 
    Justice Thomas | Opinion,'' News Week........................   180
  An article entitled, ``The media's war on Clarence and Ginni 
    Thomas,'' Washington Examiner................................   185
  An article entitled, ``The ginned-up case against the 
    Thomases,'' Washington Examiner..............................   192
  An article entitled, ``Politico Launches Attack On SCOTUS 
    Justices' Working Spouses,'' The Federalist..................   196

                                APPENDIX

An arbitration award from the American Arbitration Association, 
  Employment Arbitration Tribunal, Tatiana Spottiswoode v. Zia 
  Chishti and SATMAP Inc., Afiniti U.S., submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York, for the record...........   206








 
   UNDUE INFLUENCE: OPERATION HIGHER COURT AND POLITICKING AT SCOTUS

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, December 8, 2022

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:19 p.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair 
of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee, Cohen, 
Johnson of Georgia, Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, 
Demings, Scanlon, Garcia, McBath, Dean, Escobar, Jones, Ross, 
Bush, Jordan, Issa, Buck, Gaetz, Biggs, McClintock, Steube, 
Tiffany, Massie, Bishop, Fischbach, Spartz, and Fitzgerald.
    Staff Present: Amy Rutkin, Staff Director and Chief of 
Staff; Aaron Hiller, Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director; 
John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff Director; Arya 
Hariharan, Chief Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass, Senior 
Counsel; Moh Sharma, Director of Member Services and Outreach 
and Policy Advisor; Jacqui Kappler, Oversight Counsel; Roma 
Venkateswaran, Professional Staff Member/Legislative Aide; 
Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; Kimia Rahbar, Staff Assistant; 
Merrick Nelson, Digital Director; Jamie Simpson, Chief Counsel, 
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet; Evan R. 
Christopher, Counsel, Courts, Intellectual Property, and the 
Internet; Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director; David 
Brewer, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Tyler Grimm, Minority 
Chief Counsel for Policy and Strategy; Stephen Castor, Minority 
General Counsel; Ella Yates, Minority Member Services Director; 
Caroline Nabity, Minority Senior Counsel; Brian Nieves, 
Minority Counsel; Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk; Brock Snyder, 
Minority Staff Assistant; Russell Dye, Minority Communications 
Director and Counsel; and Nadgey Louis-Charles, Minority Deputy 
Communications Director.
    Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on ``Undue 
Influence: Operation Higher Court and Politicking at SCOTUS.''
    Before we begin, I'd like to remind Members that we have 
established an email address and distribution list dedicated to 
circulating exhibits, motions, or other materials that Members 
might want to offer as part of today's hearing.
    If you'd like to submit materials, please send them to the 
email address that has previously been distributed to your 
offices, and we will circulate the materials to Members and 
staff as quickly as we can.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    ``Lobbying'' is a term we hear frequently in Washington, 
DC. There is an entire industry built around advocacy, 
outreach, and influencing policymakers and government 
officials.
    To limit abuse and to give the American people transparency 
into the legislative process, the lobbyists who meet with 
Members of Congress and their staff must carefully monitor, 
track, and file disclosures regarding their interactions, and 
the lawmakers themselves have extensive disclosure requirements 
when they are treated to gifts, meals, and travel. The same 
applies to the Executive Branch.
    Those who meet with Supreme Court Justices, who have a life 
term, have no similar ethical requirement. Those who lobby them 
can pay for Justices' meals, vacations, and conference travel, 
and do so without letting anyone else know. The Justices' own 
financial reporting obligations are severely lacking.
    We rarely associate the term ``lobbying'' when discussing 
the Supreme Court, or influence or advocacy beyond the limits 
of briefs, motions, and oral arguments, all placed on the 
record.
    The Supreme Court is an institution meant to be beyond both 
influence and reproach, held in esteem by the general public, 
and one governed by the facts and laws argued before it.
    Unfortunately, as we will hear today, that might not always 
be the case. The Court may, in fact, be susceptible to outside 
influence and lobbying.
    Recent reporting has uncovered a sophisticated covert 
lobbying scheme known as Operation Higher Court that operated 
behind the curtain of the Supreme Court for more than 20 years.
    One of our Witnesses, Reverend Schenck, will describe how 
his organization worked with donors to develop long-term 
relationships with the conservative-leaning Members of the 
Supreme Court to move them farther right on faith-based issues.
    This quiet lobbying by what he terms ``stealth 
missionaries'' generally began as encounters at events held by 
the Supreme Court Historical Society and evolved to include 
private dinners and even vacations with the Justices and their 
wives.
    These are not merely social occasions. They had an explicit 
mission to encourage the Justices to resist compromise and to 
take hardline stances on priority faith-based issues, issues 
such as abortion, religious accommodation, and same-sex 
marriage.
    Reverend Schenck's organization identified conservative 
Christian Justices enjoying a life term who they believed may 
be sympathetic to their organization's beliefs. His supporters 
then sought to use this shared faith to infiltrate the 
Justices' social circles and to push them further to the right, 
away from compromise, and towards more extreme legal positions.
    Access to abortion care, contraception, gay marriage, in 
all these areas critical to Reverend Schenck's ministry he 
sought to encourage the Justices to use their faith to decide 
America's laws.
    In his written testimony, Reverend Schenck testified that 
even he believed the Justices viewed Roe v. Wade as settled 
law, but this did not stop him or his supporters from lobbying 
specific Justices, urging them to undermine women's access to 
basic medical care.
    These efforts, whether through private group prayer 
sessions, intimate dinners, or lavish trips, ultimately bore 
fruit when Justice Alito delivered his decision in Dobbs, 
overturning Roe v. Wade and putting women's healthcare across 
the country in peril.
    We are now left wondering how much of this decision 
upending decades of established precedent was influenced by the 
organized wealthy donors lobbying to move the conservative 
Justices to the right.
    To be clear, no one in this story, neither Reverend 
Schenck, nor his supporters, nor the Justices of the Supreme 
Court, broke the rules. That is the problem.
    If the Supreme Court were subject to a Code of Ethics like 
the rest of the Federal Judiciary, and like the legislative and 
Executive Branches, they would need to follow basic financial 
disclosure reporting, gift rules, and recusal guidelines.
    They would need to ask of themselves what every employee of 
Congress, of the White House, and of the Federal courts asks: 
What is the nature of this friendly dinner? Is someone asking 
something of me?
    Many in Congress and in the media have focused on the 
revelation that one of Reverend Schenck's stealth missionaries 
received advance word of the Hobby Lobby decision allegedly 
from Justice Alito himself.
    While this breach of trust is undoubtedly a serious 
incident, made even more troubling in light of the leak of the 
Dobbs opinion earlier this year, it should not be the key 
takeaway from Reverend Schenck's story.
    The moral of the story is this. Supreme Court Justices 
cannot effectively self-police their own ethics. We shouldn't 
expect them to. Without established guidelines, at best we 
leave Justices with the impossible and exhausting task of 
evaluating ethics without a clear standard. At worst, we have 
Justices accepting overtures from individuals seeking to 
influence the Court with little to no transparency.
    Ethics should not be a partisan issue. In 2018, this 
Committee passed, by voice vote, legislation sponsored by 
Congressman Issa that would have created a Code of Ethics for 
the Supreme Court. Our colleague, Congressman Hank Johnson, had 
since introduced similar legislation.
    I sincerely hope that we can all work together to pass 
legislation that would help restore America's faith in our 
highest court.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    March 2020, on the steps of the Supreme Court, Senator 
Schumer said, quote,

        I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you 
        have released a whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You 
        won't know what hit you.

April of last year, the Democrat Chair of the House Judiciary 
Committee introduced legislation to add four Associate Justices 
to the United States Supreme Court, to pack the Court.
    May 2 of this year, the draft opinion of the Dobbs decision 
was made public. The next day, May 3, the very next day, 
attacks on churches, crisis pregnancy centers begin. They occur 
around the country, and they continue for months. Over a 
hundred churches, crisis pregnancy centers attacked since the 
leak of that opinion.
    Now, you know what they call all that? You know what all 
that's called? Intimidation. Threats against Justices Gorsuch 
and Kavanaugh, threats to pack the Court, leaking of an 
opinion, and attacks on churches, a concerted effort by the 
left to intimidate the highest court in our land.
    I didn't even mention the lies told about Justice Kavanaugh 
in 2018 during his confirmation process. I didn't mention when 
Senator Joe Biden and Senate Democrats drove Justice Alito's 
wife to tears during his confirmation hearing. I didn't mention 
the Democrats on this Committee who have for the last year 
attacked Justice Thomas and his wife.
    Now, today a hearing about 8-year-old secondhand hearsay--
8-year-old secondhand hearsay from a Witness who, for 18 years, 
took money from pro-life donors, $30 million, and then this 
year, all of a sudden remembers just weeks after the Dobbs leak 
happened, that eight years ago he heard that, at a dinner 
party, Justice Alito told his guests that they would like the 
Hobby Lobby decision. Just now remembers that.
    Mr. Schenck wasn't there. Justice Alito said Mr. Schenck's 
story is not true. The dinner guests said Mr. Schenck's story 
is not true. The Supreme Court said Mr. Schenck's story is not 
true. Politico said, quote, ``We spent several months 
attempting to corroborate Schenck's claim but were unable to 
locate anyone who heard about the decision from Alito or his 
wife before its release.''
    Let me just say part of that again: ``We were unable to 
locate anyone who heard about the decision from Alito before 
its release.''
    Even The New York Times who broke the story, they said 
there are gaps in Mr. Schenck's account--gaps in his account. 
That's liberal speak for this story doesn't add up.
    I'll tell you something that did happen. The Dobbs draft 
opinion was, in fact, leaked, and it was made public on May 2, 
2022. After that leak, as I've said, dozens and dozens of 
churches were attacked, dozens and dozens of pro-life crisis 
pregnancy centers were attacked, protests occurred at Supreme 
Court Justices' homes, and there was an assassination attempt 
on Justice Kavanaugh.
    To date, in this Congress, not one hearing in the House 
Judiciary Committee about that leak, not one hearing about the 
real leak, but here we are today, at the end of the session, 
having a hearing on the fake leak, from a Witness whose story 
even the liberal press says, quote, ``We were unable to locate 
anyone who can corroborate what he said.'' That's what we're 
doing.
    So, I hope maybe in the last week or two of this session of 
Congress, maybe we can address, begin to look into what 
happened with the Dobbs decision, how that leak took place. I 
think that would be something that would merit our time and 
attention.
    I would also point out this, Mr. Chair, before I yield 
back. We just got his testimony. We were supposed to get his 
testimony the night before. We just, at 12:20, we get his 
testimony for a 10 o'clock hearing. Been nice if we'd have had 
that as well.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, 
Intellectual Property, and the Internet, the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Good morning, everyone.
    Thank you, Chair, for holding this very important hearing 
on such short notice.
    I also want to thank the Witnesses, particularly Reverend 
Schenck, for being here today.
    I appreciate the time that you all have spent here. We were 
supposed to get started at 10, but we had some things going on, 
on the floor, that prevented us from meeting at that time. So, 
I appreciate your forbearance.
    For years I've been writing and warning about an ethical 
crisis at the Supreme Court, and I've introduced legislation to 
address it. Not just one, but more than one piece of 
legislation. I've Chaired hearings on it in my Courts 
Subcommittee, more than one hearing.
    I've spoken about it repeatedly, on television, online, in 
person, to news anchors, experts, and activists. I've been 
raising the alarm. After almost two Congresses, here's where we 
are.
    The year 2022 has seen more scandals of greater magnitude 
seeping out of 1 First Street than in any other single year in 
recent memory.
    Yet, what has been done? Unfortunately, we haven't seen any 
action from the United States Supreme Court itself.
    Certainly, they have every reason to want to address this 
crisis. Their job approval rating is the lowest it's been in 
the Court's entire history. Record numbers of Americans think 
the Court is too powerful, too partisan, and far too 
unaccountable.
    Public opinion matters to the Court because it is the 
public who must respect and abide by the Court's decisions, 
especially decisions they may disagree with.
    That the Court itself is unwilling to hold itself to 
standards equal even to those for lower-court judges, Members 
of Congress, and the Executive Branch makes matters even worse.
    It took pressure from congressional appropriators just to 
get the Court to admit that it was even considering an ethics 
code, but that was three years ago.
    I'd say it's been only silence since then, but that would 
not be true. It's been scandals, it's been Federalist Society 
speeches behind closed doors, it's been secret dinners with 
secret donors.
    The Court either cannot, or will not, do what is in its own 
best interest. So, therefore, Congress must step in. The 
Constitution, and the American people for that matter, have 
entrusted this body to make the laws necessary to preserve the 
national well-being.
    A Nation whose highest court was secretly and successfully 
infiltrated for over two decades by activists wining and dining 
their way to the legal outcomes they want is not the hallmark 
of a healthy Nation or a healthy democracy.
    So, the answer here is not revolutionary. It's to impose a 
written Code of Ethics that would require Justices to report 
more gifts more often and ensure the Justices are not deciding 
cases for their friends and family members.
    My Supreme Court Ethics Recusal and Transparency Act, H.R. 
7647, would do all this. My friend and colleague Senator 
Sheldon Whitehouse led this effort by introducing the SCERT Act 
in the Senate. Chair Nadler has passed the SCERT Act out of the 
House Judiciary Committee last May. Now, the time has come for 
this legislation to be passed by the Full House.
    I have every expectation that what we hear today will 
reinforce the already strong case for serious ethics reform at 
the Supreme Court. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of 
the dais to hear this testimony in the appropriate context as 
only the most recent of the Court's many ethical lapses.
    I hope you will be moved to stand up, do your 
constitutional duty, and do what we must do to keep our Nation 
healthy and strong, not only in the short term but for the next 
250 years.
    Again, I want to thank the Witnesses for being here today, 
especially Reverend Schenck, our whistleblower, for shining a 
bright light on the need for Supreme Court ethics reform.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Courts 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to first associate myself with the Ranking Member's 
statements. I then want to comment briefly on the statement by 
the Subcommittee Chair.
    I found it an amazing statement that a Member of the House 
could so vigorously talk about the lack of confidence in the 
honesty of a body, sitting in this body with all the rules that 
we now want to add to the Court, some of which I support.
    All those rules don't change the fact that on balance the 
Court has been--and I suspect will continue to be--a group of 
individuals, nine at the top, over 600 Article III Judges, and 
countless more Article I Judges, who for the most part deserve 
the public confidence of the American people that the vast 
majority of them all the time endeavor to do the right and 
honorable and ethical thing.
    It does us no good today to look at legislation by 
denigrating another body. The facts are there have been 
mistakes, perhaps even lapses of judgment, and this body has, 
on occasion, had to remove a Federal judge.
    That doesn't change the fact that although they're human 
beings, and we should do everything we can to promote greater 
confidence, we gain very little by implying that this is a 
bought and paid for organization or that their ethics, which 
were very high in everyone's mind on the other side of the 
aisle when they sided with them on an issue or two, suddenly is 
fraught with unfair influence when they don't like one or two 
of the last decisions.
    The disparagement of Justice Alito and the allegations--
which as of today I consider completely unsupported and 
uncorroborated and in doubt--should be taken for what they are: 
A day late and a dollar short.
    You cannot make an allegation this many years later and not 
have the American people call into question the purpose and the 
reason for it. It may be true, but it certainly is not timely 
and does not seem to pass the test that we should have for a 
whistleblower.
    Having said that, with the majority changing hands, with 
the Ranking Member undoubtedly being a Chair in the next 
Congress, and with the possibility that we will be reviewing 
this legislation once again, I want to make a commitment here 
today.
    I will listen to the testimony. We will continue to meet 
with individuals on all sides of the issues. We will look for 
the appropriate balance of self-rule by the Article III Court, 
the Article III of the Constitution and the Court, and those 
laws which should be passed to harmonize the left--or, sorry, 
the Articles I, II, and III of our government.
    I believe strongly that what is true for the Executive 
Branch should be true for Congress, and whenever possible and 
appropriate should be true for the Justices and the 
subordinated courts.
    So, with that, Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for this 
conference. Even though I don't think I'm going to agree with 
some of what I hear today, it is important that we listen with 
open minds.
    Last, I want to reiterate, Mr. Chair, for the years that 
I've worked with you, because this may be our last hearing--God 
knows I'm hoping it's our last hearing--it has been a pleasure 
to work with you.
    Chair Nadler. As far as I know, it's our last hearing this 
year.
    Mr. Issa. Well, then, the point, though, is that I look 
forward to working with you in the new Congress. You and I 
Chaired together the Subcommittee on the Courts some years ago. 
I know that we can, in fact, strike the right balance, and I 
hope that we all will leave here today with the commitment to 
do just that.
    I thank you for your leadership, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Without objection, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record.
    I will now introduce today's Witnesses.
    Reverend Robert Schenck is the founder and President of the 
Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute, named for a Protestant leader in 
Nazi Germany who resisted the rise of fascism and racism in his 
home country.
    Reverend Schenck holds his clergy faculties with the Mid-
Atlantic Conference of the Methodist Evangelical Church in the 
USA. He received his certificate in Bible and Theology from 
Buffalo School of the Bible, his diploma in Ministerial Studies 
from Berean College, and his B.A., M.A., and Doctor of Ministry 
from Faith Evangelical College and Seminary.
    Caroline Fredrickson is a distinguished visiting professor 
from practice at Georgetown University Law Center. She's a 
nationally recognized expert on the Supreme Court and the U.S. 
Constitution and recently served on the Presidential Commission 
on the Supreme Court.
    Previously she served for 10 years as President of the 
American Constitution Society. Professor Fredrickson earned her 
B.A. from Yale University and her J.D. from Columbia Law 
School.
    Mark Paoletta is a partner at Schaerr Jaffe LLP, 
representing clients in congressional hearings and 
investigations. Before entering private practice, Mr. Paoletta 
most recently served as General Counsel for the Office of 
Management and Budget under the Trump Administration and as 
counsel to former Vice President Mike Pence.
    Mr. Paoletta received his B.A. from Duquesne University and 
his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.
    Donald Sherman is the Senior Vice President and Chief 
Counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in 
Washington, or CREW. Mr. Sherman has a distinguished resume in 
ethics and oversight across the Federal Government, including 
time working in the White House, in both the House and the 
Senate, and in a Federal agency.
    Mr. Sherman owned both his undergraduate and law degree 
from Georgetown University.
    We welcome our distinguished Witnesses, and we thank them 
for participating today.
    I will begin by swearing in our Witnesses.
    I ask that you please rise and raise your right hand.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Chair Nadler. You may be seated.
    Let the record show that the Witnesses have answered in the 
affirmative.
    Please note that each of your written statements will be 
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask 
that you summarize your testimony in five minutes.
    To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light 
on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, 
you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When the light 
turns red, it signals your five minutes have expired.
    Reverend Schenck, you may begin.

                 TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. SCHENCK

    Mr. Schenck. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, Members 
of the Committee. I am Reverend Robert Schenck, an ordained 
evangelical minister and former lead missionary for Faith and 
Action in the Nation's Capital, a religious organization active 
on Capitol Hill from 1995-2018.
    I am now President of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute 
here in Washington, named after the World War II-era German 
theologian and Nazi resister who tried to protect the German 
Evangelical church from Nazi cooptation before he was executed 
in 1945.
    Our institute supports ethically courageous leaders, like 
our namesake, who address the social issues of our time.
    I am here to present facts, as I know them, about Operation 
Higher Court, a Christian mission that I directed as part of 
Faith and Action for 20 years, to bolster conservative Supreme 
Court Justices in the views they already held.
    I had no qualms about complying with this Committee's 
subpoena to testify, but I did not seek this public forum. 
After four decades of public life, I now relish the serenity of 
time with family, friends, colleagues, and my beloved books.
    Neither did I instigate the news coverage surrounding this 
subject. That began when a reporter overheard a former 
colleague talking about prayers, we had with some of the 
Justices inside the Supreme Court Building.
    Before that, following stories about the leak of the Dobbs 
decision this past May, The New York Times had learned about my 
role in an earlier leak related to my work at the Court, but I 
did not go on the record with them until much later.
    That was after I received no acknowledgement of the letter 
I sent to Chief Justice John Roberts in July detailing the 
matter. I had written it principally out of a concern that a 
Court subordinate would unfairly take the blame for the Dobbs 
leak, suffering draconian punishment. Yet, I knew a Justice 
would face no consequence for such a breach.
    By the time I went on the record, I was convinced there was 
even more significant implications, not only to the 2014 leak 
but also to the facts surrounding it.
    Operation Higher Court involved my recruitment of wealthy 
donors as stealth missionaries who befriended Justices that 
shared our conservative social and religious sensibilities. In 
this way, I aimed to show these Justices that Americans 
supported them and thanked God for their presence on the Court 
and the opinions they rendered.
    Our overarching goals were to gain insights into the 
conservative Justices' thinking and to shore up their resolve 
to render solid, unapologetic opinions, particularly against 
abortion.
    I called this our ``ministry of emboldenment.'' It was not 
an attempt to change minds. Beyond convivial small talk, our 
missionaries did not engage liberal members of the Court.
    My recruits for Operation Higher Court were older, highly 
accomplished, and independently minded. They did not take 
kindly to being told where to go, what to do, or how to do it. 
Successfully deploying them required their autonomy.
    I did suggest tactics to cultivate affinity, but otherwise 
our folks were on their own. Most of them limited their support 
to regular prayers on behalf of the Justice's family, warm 
personal greetings, and assurances of good will at social 
functions and sending greeting cards on special occasions.
    They might also host Justices or their spouses for meals at 
restaurants, private clubs, or their homes, and sometimes the 
Justices reciprocated.
    The Hobby Lobby leak resulted from one of these 
arrangements.
    Throughout this ordeal, I've had to look deeply at what my 
cohorts and I did at the Supreme Court. I believe we pushed the 
boundaries of Christian ethics and compromised the High Court's 
promise to administer equal justice.
    I'm also conscious we were never admonished for the type of 
work our missionaries did. Quite to the contrary. In one 
instance, Justice Thomas commended me, saying something like, 
Keep up what you're doing. It's making a difference.
    I humbly apologize to all I failed in this regard--members 
of the Court, its employees, and those at the Supreme Court 
Historical Society who expected better of me.
    Most of all, I beg the pardon of the folks I enlisted to 
help me do work that was not always transparently honest.
    Jesus Christ said of himself, ``I am the way, the truth, 
and the life.'' I'm here today in the interest of truth-
telling, and I'm prepared to answer any questions the Committee 
may have for me. Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Schenck follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Reverend Schenck.
    Professor Fredrickson, you are now recognized for five 
minutes.

               TESTIMONY OF CAROLINE FREDRICKSON

    Ms. Fredrickson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the 
Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today in 
these very important hearings.
    Today we're here to discuss whether and how Congress can 
address the perception and reality of ethics violations and 
conflicts of interest among Supreme Court Justices.
    The Constitution says very little about the courts in 
Article III and critically leaves much of the detail to 
Congress to fill in.
    Up until this point, however, Congress has not exercised 
this power to impose enforceable ethics obligations on the 
Supreme Court, although it has done so for the lower Federal 
courts.
    For a variety of reasons, including the perception of 
inappropriate political and ethical behavior, critics have 
suggested that the Supreme Court too must have a code of 
conduct that would mandate transparency and accountability and 
require recusal in cases where there is an actual or potential 
conflict of interest.
    Some believe that these perceptions have led to an historic 
drop in public confidence in the Supreme Court. Currently, only 
16 percent of adults believe the Justices do a good or 
excellent job of avoiding imposing their personal political 
views in their decisions.
    Currently, the Justices are the only Members of the Article 
III Federal Judiciary not subject to a written code of conduct. 
Since 1973, other judges have been required to adhere to a code 
that was drafted and has been revised by the United States 
Judicial Conference.
    Beyond the symbolic value of the Court publicly stating its 
commitment to ethics through a written code, having something 
transparent and public promotes accountability and allows the 
public to assess whether the Court is holding itself to an 
appropriate standard.
    Since the Court has failed to act, Congress can step in to 
enact a code for the Supreme Court, either by directing the 
Court to draft one, applying the current one to the Justices, 
or by writing a code itself.
    This Committee has chosen the first option. On May 11, the 
House Judiciary Committee passed the Supreme Court Ethics, 
Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2022, H.R. 7647, which would 
require the Supreme Court to create a code of conduct that 
would apply to Justices and their employees, ensuring that 
Justices cannot pick and choose their ethical obligations 
without being bound by a single uniform code.
    The bill contains the following provisions among others: A 
code of conduct; disclosure standards for gifts, travel, and 
income received by the Justices; mandatory recusal in cases 
where a party has lobbied or spent significant sums regarding a 
Justice or judge's confirmation, and when a party has given 
gifts, travel, and/or income to a Justice or family members 
within six years of case assignment; a requirement that 
Justices be fully aware of family interests that could be 
significantly affected by cases before them; and a requirement 
for the Court to adopt a mechanism to review a recusal motion 
and post online summary explanations.
    As Chair Nadler stated at the time of Committee passage, 
the Supreme Court is one of our Nation's most vital 
institutions, and its fidelity to equal and impartial justice, 
as well as the public's faith in the integrity of the 
Judiciary, are foundational to maintaining the Rule of Law.
    The Brennan Center for Justice, where I am a senior fellow, 
has urged passage of this law, as have many other organizations 
dedicated to an independent Judiciary and impartial justice.
    On May 13, 2022, President Biden signed the Courthouse 
Ethics and Transparency Act. That law updated the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978 to require online posting by Federal 
judges of annual financial disclosures within 90 days of the 
deadline, prompted by a Wall Street Journal story detailing how 
many judges had, in fact, flouted the act.
    While the Courthouse Ethics Act will help enormously in 
making the Federal Judiciary more transparent and accountable, 
it does not go far enough, and that is why this Committee's 
Bill, H.R. 7647, remains essential.
    A bedrock aspect of Rule of Law in a democracy is an 
independent Judiciary. Chief Justice Roberts underscored this 
vital need when he wrote to the Nation's Federal judges ``to 
reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding 
each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch.'' He called 
on them, quote, ``to resolve to do our best to maintain the 
public's trust that we are faithfully discharging our solemn 
obligation to equal justice under law.''
    There would be no better way to maintain--or perhaps, 
unfortunately, to regain--that public trust than embracing the 
call for a code of conduct and showing the American people that 
the Court is indeed dispensing equal justice under law.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    [The statement of Ms. Fredrickson follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Professor Fredrickson.
    Mr. Paoletta, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                 TESTIMONY OF MARK R. PAOLETTA

    Mr. Paoletta. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 
testify.
    Today's hearing is another in a concerted effort by 
congressional Democrats and their media allies to undermine the 
legitimacy of the Supreme Court now that the Court finally has 
a working originalist majority.
    You don't like the opinions the Court is handing down, such 
as Dobbs and Bruen, so you are smearing the Court to encourage 
the public to question its legitimacy and rulings.
    This year we have seen political attacks on Chief Justice 
Roberts, Justices Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch, and now Justice 
Alito. This political assault on the Court is a dangerous game, 
as evidenced by the attempted assassination on Justice 
Kavanaugh and the need for round-the-clock security for the 
Justices.
    My written statement addresses why the allegations against 
Justice Alito are unfounded, why the so-called Operation Higher 
Court is an absurd and classic grift, and why the Justices' 
conduct does not raise Judicial ethics concerns, and certainly 
not compared to the behavior of the late Justice Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg.
    I want to focus the rest of my oral statement on Mr. 
Schenck's credibility, or lack thereof.
    The Committee has convened a hearing to listen to 
allegations from a man who has built his entire career on 
deception and deceit. He admits to telling, in his words, a 
fair number of consequential lies. In fact, Mr. Schenck has 
been found by a Federal judge to have lied repeatedly under 
oath.
    Mr. Schenck rewrites history to suit his needs. In fact, 
even today he says in his 2018 memoir, ``Costly Grace,'' he 
wrote that Operation Higher Power's (sic) goal was to convert 
Justices to a pro-life position.

        We knew we were stuck with Members of the Federal bench. They 
        were appointed for life. So why not convert them while in 
        office?

    In peddling his story today, Mr. Schenck says, according to 
The New York Times--and his testimony just now--his aim was not 
to change minds but rather to stiffen the resolve of the 
Court's conservatives in taking uncompromising stances that 
could eventually lead to the reversal of Roe.
    He rewrites history now, and not his first time, that his 
conduct is getting more scrutiny.
    To even describe this project is to mock it. He would send 
these stealth missionaries to persuade the Justices with 
Biblical references, supposedly strengthening their resolve. It 
has a somewhat Manchurian Candidate feel to it where covert 
agents say code words to ``activate'' a Justice.
    Aside from the pure dishonesty of this campaign, does 
anyone actually believe that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito 
need any converting or bucking up of their views of Roe v. Wade 
that it was wrongly decided and needed to be overturned?
    Justices Thomas and Scalia had already voted to overturn 
Roe in Casey in 1992. Justice Alito, when he was at the 
Department of Justice, had written in 1985 that the 
Constitution, quote, ``does not protect a right to an 
abortion,'' years before this Schenck operation began.
    Mr. Schenck preyed on the good will of well-intentioned 
people who care about pro-life issues to contribute $30 million 
to him. Schenck's entire project was a grift and had zero 
impact on these Justices or any Justice in their votes or 
opinions.
    Today's hearing concerns Mr. Schenck's dubious claim that 
in June 2014, during a dinner at their home, Justice Alito or 
his wife disclosed to two of Mr. Schenck's donors the result 
and author of the Hobby Lobby decision three weeks before it 
was issued by the Court.
    Of course, Mr. Schenck was not at this dinner himself but 
rather claims he was told by one of the donors, the 
participant, the next day.
    Gayle Wright, who was at this dinner, denies that Justice 
Alito or his wife ever disclosed this information. Justice 
Alito also denies that he or his wife disclosed such 
information. Mr. Schenck manipulates vague emails to spin a 
tail, but they don't prove anything.
    We are left with relying on the credibility of Mr. 
Schenck's word, and he is not a reliable narrator of the truth. 
He wants us to believe he has changed and put that deceptive 
and lying self behind him.
    While lots of people change their views on a topic, being a 
deceiver and a liar is a separate matter and changing that 
lying habit is harder.
    Mr. Schenck is and always has been chasing the money. In 
the old days he conned wealthy conservative individuals. His 
new targets are progressive funders like Abigail Disney, who 
provided the seed money to start his new organization several 
years ago.
    Based on his recent IRS filings, he's running low on 
revenue, so he's decided to amp up his stories from his dark 
days. We have seen this show before.
    Committee Democrats and their allies argue that changes to 
the Court are necessary because recent polling--just heard this 
today--that show the Supreme Court's approval rating is at 40 
percent.
    Well, perhaps Congress should look in the mirror. What does 
it say that Congress' approval rating, under Democrat control, 
is only at 21 percent, with a 75 percent disapproval rating. 
Perhaps Congress should make changes to itself before meddling 
with the Supreme Court.
    This Committee is so desperate to undermine the credibility 
of the Supreme Court and its conservative Justices that it 
showcases a con man with a known record of lying and deception 
and zero credibility. In this process the Committee is helping 
to smear an honorable Justice and a good man. These attacks 
must end.
    I'd be happy to answer any questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Paoletta follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Paoletta.
    Mr. Sherman, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                 TESTIMONY OF DONALD K. SHERMAN

    Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chair, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of 
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you to address the ongoing ethical crisis at the Supreme Court.
    My organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in 
Washington, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization committed 
to ensuring ethics and transparency in government institutions.
    I understand that this hearing has been called, in part, to 
discuss Reverend Schenck's shocking allegations of a leak and 
undue influence at the Supreme Court.
    However, I want to be clear about the scope of my testimony 
today. I have no information about the veracity of Reverend 
Schenck's leak allegations and won't comment as to his 
character.
    Here is what I do know. The Supreme Court is facing a grave 
threat to its legitimacy. Its opaque and unpredictable ethical 
honor system has failed. The Court is sliding from scandal to 
scandal with a response that suggests it is either too 
oblivious to understand this danger or too arrogant to address 
it.
    Meanwhile, polls show public confidence in the Court at an 
all-time low.
    As someone who has conducted numerous government ethics and 
oversight investigations, it's shocking to reflect on how few 
methods of transparency and accountability apply to the Federal 
courts.
    Federal judges are unelected and afforded life tenure. 
Supreme Court Justices have no inspector general, are not 
subject to FOIA, lobbying disclosures, or visitor logs, and are 
exempt from the Federal criminal conflict of interest statute.
    The Court lacks basic oversight mechanisms, including those 
applicable to lower court judges, and still refuses to create a 
binding code of conduct.
    Ethics is not a partisan issue. America is losing faith in 
an institution whose credibility is its currency--and for good 
reason.
    Justices across the ideological spectrum have participated 
in cases in which they have a financial interest or that 
directly impact their spouse. Influence seekers are cozying up 
to Justices at Black tie galas. Months after the Dobbs leak, 
there are now allegations that a Justice leaked details of a 
different opinion to wealthy activists recruited to buy access 
to him.
    These scandals are just the latest examples of the 
Judiciary's larger systemic ethical failure. For decades, 
Justices have tested the limits of the system's weak norms. 
Activists and advocates, regardless of motivation or ideology, 
have exploited loopholes in the Court's ethics regime to obtain 
access to and potentially influence individual Justices.
    That is the undisputed truth at the bottom of Reverend 
Schenck's allegations, that the Alitos became friends with the 
Wrights because Reverend Schenck recruited and groomed the 
Wrights to do so.
    Although other Justices rejected similar overtures, the 
Supreme Court's nonexistent ethics regime could do nothing to 
stop it.
    Even more troubling, neither this body, nor the public, 
know what rules or process exist to investigate Reverend 
Schenck's allegations, the Dobbs leak, or other ethics issues. 
The Court appears to have none, yet has chaffed against 
oversight from any other branch.
    Imagine, for example, if in response to a congressional 
letter or IG inquiry an agency simply responded, ``Well, the 
subjects of the investigation said they didn't do.'' Congress 
and the public would be rightly outraged.
    That's essentially what the Court's lawyer told Chairs 
Whitehouse and Johnson last month. It's both obtuse and 
untenable.
    In my written testimony, I outline several steps that 
Congress can take under the Constitution to help fix these 
ethics problems and rebuild public faith in the Court. I do not 
have the time to discuss all of them right now, so I will focus 
on the one that's most relevant to this hearing.
    The Supreme Court needs a public, binding code of conduct. 
If the Court does not adopt its own, then Congress should 
require the Court to develop one. That code needs to have 
significant limitations on the types and amounts of gifts that 
Justices are allowed to accept and on their participation in 
outside events or speeches with politically aligned 
organizations, among others.
    The code also needs to include a clear standard for recusal 
and require Justices to make those recusal determinations 
public.
    One of the central lessons of Operation Higher Court is how 
easy it is for the wealthy and connected to buy access to our 
Justices.
    Reasonable people can and should question how that access 
undermines the credibility of an institution tasked with 
providing equal justice under law.
    Although Reverend Schenck is in the proverbial hot seat 
today, the arrogance and benign neglect of the Supreme Court 
are the actual reasons these scandals persist.
    In closing, the people have given Supreme Court Justices 
the power to expand or take away our fundamental rights and 
even to decide matters of life and death. In exchange, we 
merely demand that members of the highest court be held to the 
highest ethical standards.
    If the Court continues to reject those calls, then Congress 
must step in and mandate reform.
    While the Supreme Court may interpret and even strike down 
our laws, it is not above them.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important 
topic. I look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Let me announce to my colleagues that there's a vote on the 
floor, but we'll keep going as long as we can, consonant with 
giving everybody a chance to vote, and then we'll reconvene.
    I thank all the Witnesses for their testimony.
    We'll now proceed under the five-minute rule with 
questions. I recognize myself for five minutes.
    Mr. Sherman, the Executive and Legislative branches are 
subject to extensive ethics rules much more the Judicial 
Branch. In your opinion, have those worked? Why is the ease of 
access and ability to influence the Court, compared to Congress 
and the Executive Branch, so concerning?
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you for the question.
    While I certainly think that the Executive Branch and the 
congressional ethics regimes could be strengthened, I think 
they pale--the Supreme Court's ethics regime pales in 
comparison.
    In fact, the Supreme Court doesn't even have to meet the 
ethical standards or have an ethical process consistent with 
what lower court judges have to abide by.
    So, it is highly problematic and quite curious why the 
highest court in our land has the lowest ethical standards even 
as compared to other Federal judges.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Professor Fredrickson, can you tell us what specific 
prohibitions or guardrails you think must be included in any 
code which the Justices may adopt?
    Ms. Fredrickson. Well, thank you for that question.
    I think the guardrails that this Committee has included are 
very significant ones. I think limitations on the ability to 
accept gifts, very important disclosure rules, and recusal.
    Recusal has to be something that actually really implies--
applies more forcefully to the Justices, that is, there needs 
to be a policing mechanism that doesn't exist right now.
    Right now, the Justices are the only judges in their own 
cause. They decide themselves whether to recuse, and there is 
no oversight mechanism of that.
    The Court should be directed, as this Committee's bill 
would do, to develop its standard and a policing approach, 
where there would be some review by the Court as a whole.
    Chair Nadler. Let me just ask you very quickly. If the 
Court didn't do that, do you think--would you think it proper 
for Congress to impose a code?
    Ms. Fredrickson. I think it would be far more preferable 
were the Court to do it itself for many reasons, but I do 
believe that Congress could also do so.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Reverend Schenck, what was the purpose of working to 
embolden conservative Supreme Court Justices, especially when 
you suspected that they already agreed with you?
    Mr. Schenck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We're all human beings, all cut from the same cord. If 
there's anything I've learned in 45 years of ordained ministry, 
it's that we all suffer similarly, we all have similar 
weaknesses.
    When I arrived at the Supreme Court in the late 1990s, at 
least my fellow conservatives and I had convinced ourselves 
that the conservative members of the Court were beleaguered. 
They were disfavored. They were routinely maligned and insulted 
in the public arena. We thought they needed some shoring up.
    We also were concerned that some of them had assured, in 
their testimony during a confirmation hearing, that Roe v. Wade 
was settled law and that maybe, just maybe, other forces could 
work to intimidate them from coming after Roe.
    So, we wanted to create a circle of people around them that 
would encourage them, applaud them, literally thank God for 
them, and assure them of prayerful support, and by being 
present, indicate to them that there were many, many Americans 
who were behind them and hoped that they would render strong, 
unapologetic, unequivocal opinions that would support the 
positions important to us.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Briefly, can you describe the major differences you faced 
when conducting outreach to Members of Congress or the 
Executive Branch versus the Supreme Court? How did that factor 
into your organization shifting its attention to the Supreme 
Court?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes. Well, of course with the other branches 
there were clear rules in place that limited the way one could 
interact with the representatives of those branches.
    This body, in particular, because we were aware that there 
were limitations on gifts. For example, when you took someone 
out to dinner, you had to be careful who can pay for this, and 
when it came to honoraria for speaking engagements, and so 
forth.
    None of that applied at the Supreme Court. We knew that 
there was a great deal of liberty and latitude there and made 
our operation at the Judicial Branch at that level much easier.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. My time is expired.
    Mr. Steube.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield my time to Chair 
Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Schenck, did Gayle Wright really tell you that?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Justice Alito said he didn't tell her. She said 
she didn't tell him. You're sure she told you.
    Mr. Schenck. Absolutely.
    Mr. Jordan. Now, you wrote a book a couple years ago, is 
that right, 2018--
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. --you wrote a book?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. I want to read a section from that book. It's 
the section where you relate you and your family were--attended 
oral arguments at the Court, you were there in the courtroom, 
and that directly involved your brother Paul, also a reverend. 
I just want to read this section. You said,

        With a single wrap of the gavel, Chief Justice William 
        Rehnquist announced, ``We'll hear argument first this morning 
        in No. 95-1065, Reverend Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders v. 
        Pro-Choice Network of Western New York.'' Paul and I winked at 
        each other, knowing we had made history with that ``Reverend'' 
        in his name. It had been a minor victory when we persuaded the 
        Court that ``Reverend'' should remain before Paul's name, even 
        though we had been told repeatedly that legal briefs never 
        included such titles.

    You thought it was important that, obviously, based on what 
you said, that you thought it was important that the title 
``Reverend'' be in front of Paul's name. Is that right?
    Mr. Schenck. Correct.
    Mr. Jordan. Why was that?
    Mr. Schenck. Because we saw it as a religious liberty 
matter and that this would make it clear that it fit in that 
category.
    Mr. Jordan. Did Chief Justice Rehnquist really say that the 
way I just read it from your book?
    Mr. Schenck. I can't say that I remember that clearly.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, you're pretty darn specific here. You've 
got the number, Case No. 95-1065. The very next word says 
``Reverend'' Paul Schenck. You made it a big deal, about it's 
the first time it's ever happened.
    I'm just asking, did it really happen?
    Mr. Schenck. I wish I could tell--I would have to go back 
and review that.
    Mr. Jordan. So, it may not have?
    Mr. Schenck. Possibly not.
    Mr. Jordan. Why do you say possibly not? You were emphatic 
in your book.
    Mr. Schenck. I would have to go back and--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, we did go back. We did go back. I got the 
transcript right here.

        Proceedings, 10:05 a.m., Chief Justice Rehnquist: ``We'll hear 
        argument first this morning in No. 95-1065, Paul Schenck and 
        Dwight Saunders v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York.

Did you hear it?
    Mr. Schenck. I did.
    Mr. Jordan. Was there a word missing?
    Mr. Schenck. Title, ``Reverend.''
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Wasn't in there.
    In your book, you said it was a big deal, so much so, that 
you winked at your brother.
    Did you wink at your brother?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. What did you wink for if it wasn't in the 
title?
    Mr. Schenck. Well, it was our case.
    Mr. Jordan. That's not--you said you winked because they 
included ``Reverend'' in the title and the transcript says Mr. 
Rehnquist didn't.
    Mr. Schenck. Perhaps not.
    Mr. Jordan. Perhaps? Did the court reporter get it wrong? 
Did he say it and court reporter get it wrong?
    Mr. Schenck. Well, then--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, we got the audio too. I want to play that 
for everyone to hear.
    [Audio recording played.]
    Mr. Jordan. Reverend, did you hear that?
    Mr. Schenck. I did.
    Mr. Jordan. Was there a word missing that's different from 
what you put in your book?
    Mr. Schenck. A title, yes.
    Mr. Jordan. What was that title?
    Mr. Schenck. Reverend.
    Mr. Jordan. ``Reverend'' was not there, right?
    Did you wink at your brother?
    Mr. Schenck. I think I did. In fact, I think I actually--
    Mr. Jordan. Oh, wow.
    Mr. Schenck. --hooked him.
    Mr. Jordan. So, now you got more details. You got the key 
detail wrong, what you were writing about in your book, but now 
you remember an additional detail. You not only winked, but you 
also elbowed your brother.
    Mr. Schenck. I think I did.
    Mr. Jordan. Even though the reason for the wink in your 
writing was the fact that ``Reverend'' was used in the title, 
something that never had been done. It wasn't used. We're 
supposed to believe you today. We're supposed to take your word 
over Justice Alito's word. We're supposed to take your word 
over a lady who gave you dollars, donated to your cause, Ms. 
Gayle Wright.
    You're disparaging her name, Justice Alito's name, and the 
Court, and you have this, which obviously didn't happen. We got 
the transcript; we got the audio. You made it a big deal in 
your book.
    One thing I've learned: People who mislead folks on small 
things mislead them on big things. You know what? You can lie 
in a book, it's not a crime. You can lie to The New York Times, 
that's not a crime.
    When you come in front of Congress and you say things that 
are not true, you're not allowed to do that. You're not 
supposed to do that. We've seen it. You're not supposed to do 
that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields 
back. At this time the time has expired, and so I will 
therefore recognize myself for five minutes of questions.
    Reverend Schenck, I've been in Congress now for 16 years, 
and never have I witnessed the kind of savage attack that has 
been levied against you today. I've never seen that or heard 
that happen before.
    Mr. Jordan. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No, I won't.
    I'd like to know, sir, I mean, do you have any response to 
anything that Attorney Paoletta said about you?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes. Couple of things. One is, I think he 
alluded to finding that I had made untruthful statements under 
oath, something like that.
    In those days, I was a street activist, and these were--
there were a number of criminal proceedings. At that time, we 
felt we were not--those of us who were activists--were not 
obligated to incriminate ourselves. It was up to others to 
prove their accusations against us.
    I will say that, activists, like politicians, become 
hyperbolic. We use inflammatory language for effect.
    At this season of my life, when the most important things 
to me are the love of my family, the hugs of my new grandchild, 
and really, probably the last third of my professional career--
and maybe life--what matters to me is telling the truth, is 
speaking candidly.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me--
    Mr. Schenck. That's what I've come here to do.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you for that.
    Let me just say that having looked through your background, 
having seen that you were born to a father who was Jewish, a 
mother who was Catholic, she converted to Judaism, but then as 
you got older, you converted to Christianity, took flack for it 
from the family, which was--later, they embraced you. You were 
a man who has stood on principle, even though I have disagreed 
with many of the positions that you have taken over the years. 
I don't think it can be said that you are a gentleman who lacks 
principle and character, and does what you believe and is 
truthful and honest. So, I want to thank you for being here 
today.
    I want to ask you, what was the relationship between the 
Supreme Court Historical Society and your efforts with 
influencing Justices at the Supreme Court or at least 
bolstering them in their thinking?
    Mr. Schenck. Mr. Chair, in 1999, my organization acquired a 
piece of property across the street from the Supreme Court 
which we thought would give us advantage in accessing the 
Court, and it did. At that time I discovered the existence of 
the Supreme Court Historical Society, in particular, that it 
sponsored an annual dinner inside the Court hosted by the Chief 
Justice, often attended by most of the other Associate 
Justices, and that one could join the Society and enjoy access 
to those events, which I did. I joined the Society, and it 
became an entry point for our work.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You actually had donors to raise 
money for the Supreme Court Historical Society. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes. I encouraged our people to contribute 
generously.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Do you have any idea how much money 
you were able to raise for the Supreme Court Historical Society 
and what that money may have been used for?
    Mr. Schenck. I never actually added it up, but it was 
considerable. It was certainly--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Over $1 million?
    Mr. Schenck. It could have been.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Professor Fredrickson, can you tell 
me how my bill, the Supreme Court Ethics Recusal and 
Transparency Act, would potentially prevent or at least root 
out influence campaigns like the one that Reverend Schenck has 
described?
    Ms. Fredrickson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you for 
your very fine work on this legislation.
    A couple of obvious ways. The disclosure standards for 
gifts, travel, and income would go to the private dinners and 
the travel that was described by Reverend Schenck, a mandatory 
recusal with a policing mechanism for the Court itself to 
review recusal, motions. I think those things would go very 
much, both to potentially the reality of conflicts of interest, 
but certainly the perception that so many people have that 
there are ethics problems on the Supreme Court.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. My time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Representative 
Biggs, for five minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Schenck, I have to say, there is something in the law 
that we call hearsay, and hearsay is inherently unreliable, and 
we don't allow that in. In your case, you've got hearsay built 
upon hearsay built upon hearsay. It's inherently unreliable. 
It's incredible. It's unbelievable. So, we don't let that in. 
You would have to have three exceptions to the hearsay rule to 
get that in. You've got none. You've got none.
    At the law we call it hearsay, you know what we call it in 
the world away from law? Gossip, innuendo, deceit, and I have 
to sell you, it is one of the most pernicious performances I've 
seen publicly in a long time.
    I find it interesting, Mr. Chair, we're having this hearing 
given the Committee's lack--the Democrats' lack of reaction to 
the leak of the draft in the Dobbs decision. You held zero 
hearings on it. An assassination threat was made. You slow-
walked security legislation for Supreme Court Justices. Today, 
we're here based on a guy who's telling us a story that someone 
allegedly told him about somebody allegedly told him. That is a 
what's pernicious here.
    Politico, it's not a friend of Justice Alito. They spent 
months trying to corroborate your story. They said, quote, 
``they're unable to locate anyone who heard about the decision 
directly from either Alito or his wife before its release at 
the end of June 2014,'' end of quote.
    We're having a hearing today on this topic when the 
majority have ignored real threats to the Supreme Court over 
the past year.
    For example, following the leak of the draft Dobbs 
decision, daily protests outside the home of Supreme Court 
Justices were encountered trying to sway or influence the Dobbs 
decision; but we didn't have a hearing on that.
    In June, Nicolas Roske was arrested outside the home of 
Justice Brett Kavanaugh after he admitted that he came from 
California to Maryland to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh. We 
didn't have a hearing on that, but we're having a hearing today 
based on specious defamatory statements.
    Mr. Paoletta, thanks for being here today.
    You saw the coverage of the constant protests at the 
Supreme Court earlier, I believe.
    Mr. Paoletta. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. What were those protests designed to accomplish 
do you think?
    Mr. Paoletta. The protests, beginning in part with Senator 
Schumer standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, and in my 
view, physically threatening Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and 
telling them that if they rule a certain way, they will pay the 
consequence, they won't know what hit them.
    So, we also have to remember it went back to Senator 
Schumer making that threat on the steps of the Supreme Court 
about what kind of case? An abortion case.
    All of these threats, all of these protests are designed to 
intimidate the Justices, but even more so, fear for their life. 
I mean, intimidate them as Justices, but fear for their life, 
and that is why Justices have around-the-clock security now, 
which I think is unheard of. It's all caused, right--and let me 
put it this way. I don't think they're protesting the liberal 
Justices. Okay. These are all targeted at the conservative 
Justices and have put their life in danger, all of them.
    Mr. Biggs. The design is to have a long-term impact on the 
Court and on decisions that come out of the Court.
    You might be aware that the Chair of this Committee, Chair 
Nadler, and several other Members of this Committee are 
supporting legislation to expand the number of Justices on the 
Supreme Court. A Member of this Committee tweeted out: The 
Supreme Court expansion is infrastructure.
    Why do you think they want to expand the size of the 
Supreme Court?
    Mr. Paoletta. For many, many years, the Supreme Court has 
basically been a super legislature putting in place sort of 
policies, and, essentially, laws that they couldn't get enacted 
through the democratic process.
    So, they want to return to those days and increase the 
court size so that they can get these policies adopted. It's a 
terrible development in undermining the legitimacy of the 
Supreme Court.
    Mr. Biggs. You have a Democrat who tweeted out: Republicans 
stole two Supreme Court seats to have a far-right super 
majority, and now the Court is ready to strip away our 
fundamental rights. Expand the Court before it's too late.
    That corroborates what your premises.
    I just tell you, I'll close, Mr. Sherman, you asked what 
would happen if agencies didn't respond to letters from Members 
of Congress. I send 75-100 letters a year. I don't get any 
responses from this Administration.
    Mr. Cicilline. [Presiding.] The time for the gentleman has 
expired.
    I now recognize myself for five minutes.
    I want to begin by thanking the Witnesses for their 
testimony today.
    The Supreme Court, the highest court in our Nation, no 
longer has the confidence of most Americans. This institution, 
a historical symbol of integrity and fairness that is meant to 
be free from politicization, now seems as politicized as 
Congress itself, and it's no wonder why.
    Report after report has detailed that some Justices of our 
highest court are acting in defiance of the principles of 
ethics they're meant to uphold. They've accepted tens of 
thousands of dollars in travel and lodging benefits that don't 
get reported. They refuse to recuse themselves in cases where 
they clearly have a conflict of interest. Most recently, we've 
learned of a Justice potentially catering to a special interest 
group and giving them advance notice of a pending decision.
    Every Member of Congress, and Federal judges throughout our 
system, except those on the Supreme Court, are subject to a 
Code of Ethics to govern this kind of behavior. It's 
bewildering that the Supreme Court Justices are not, and we're 
clearly seeing the results of that. We have trusted them to 
police themselves, and clearly, they have failed.
    Fortunately, we know how to fix this. We can and must 
restore faith in our highest court, and we can start by passing 
the Supreme Court Ethics and Transparency Act, an important 
court reform package that would do just that.
    Now, I want to begin my questions, Reverend Schenck, with 
you. This campaign which I think to most Americans is just 
shocking that there was actually a sophisticated effort to 
influence either by bucking up or strengthening the views or 
even changing the minds of Justices of the Supreme Court on 
important issues. This is shocking to me.
    In addition to that work, was there also travel with 
supporters of the higher court campaign with Justices of the 
Supreme Court, both through vacation destinations, vacation 
homes? Can you give some examples of some trips the Justices 
took, if any, with supporters of Faith in Action?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes, Mr. Chair. I was aware that Justices 
Alito and Scalia had visited the home--the second or third 
home--I'm not sure how they counted it--of the Wrights, Don and 
Gayle Wright in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. They had both been out 
there to visit. I was not aware of any other in particular.
    Mr. Cicilline. Were you aware on those trips whether or not 
the Justices traveled with their spouses?
    Mr. Schenck. I don't recall, Mr. Chair. Maybe--and I'll 
just correct myself. I was aware of one trip that Justice 
Scalia took with Mr. Don Wright that involved hunting. I think 
they were quail hunting somewhere, perhaps even in South 
America. I'm not sure.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Sherman, would you speak to this question? There has 
been some public reporting about this as well. Currently, are 
Supreme Court Justices permitted to take trips, private trips 
with individuals valued at--can be valued at thousands of 
dollars without disclosing that benefit?
    Mr. Sherman. They are. There is a gift ban statute, but the 
regulations that apply to lower court judges do not apply--or 
the Justices of the Supreme Court are not bound by that. So, 
essentially what you have is Justices accepting gifts based on 
whether they choose to accept them or not. Everybody loves free 
trips. Certainly, at the highest court in our land, we should 
have a transparent process for the Justices to resolve those 
conflicts of interest.
    Mr. Cicilline. Are there any limitations in the existing 
law or ethics provisions that limit what happens during those 
free trips that Justices may take?
    Mr. Sherman. No.
    Mr. Cicilline. Can you describe for the American people, 
what is the consequence of permitting free gifts of any value 
as it relates to travel or other gifts? What is the potential 
danger? Why does it matter?
    Mr. Sherman. So, obviously, there's the potential danger of 
influence in the specter of wealthy activists using their money 
to get the Justices to change their mind or decide in their 
favor. More importantly, an independent and impartial Judiciary 
is what ensures that the law protects regular folks, like all 
the constituents and holds the powerful accountable.
    Mr. Cicilline. So, if we were--I have legislation that, in 
fact, would require the disclosure and set some limitations on 
travel that can be given to Supreme Court Justices.
    Would that address this issue appropriately?
    Mr. Sherman. While I certainly would hope that the Court 
implemented a Code of Conduct, that would help address the 
issue, yes.
    Mr. Cicilline. If the Court fails to do so.
    Mr. Sherman. Yes.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    We now have two votes on the House floor, so we will recess 
now and return immediately after the second vote.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. [Presiding.] The Committee will 
come to order. I will now recognize Mr. McClintock, the 
gentleman from California, for five minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, this hearing is absolutely astonishing to me. 
Your star Witness is a pathetic grifter, a documented liar, and 
he comes here to tell us that in 2014, Justice Alito told a 
dinner companion how the Supreme Court would rule in the Hobby 
Lobby case. His source vehemently denies it. The Justice 
vehemently denies it. There are no contemporaneous notes or 
recordings, and not a single newspaper can corroborate this, 
although they desperately tried.
    So, the testimony is impeached by the very sources the 
drifter claims to have had, and there's nothing, nothing, to 
support his claims. He didn't think to share it publicly until 
eight years later when the left began a concerted effort to 
smear Justice Alito for the Dobbs decision, and to delegitimize 
the Court as an institution because they intend to pack it.
    Meanwhile, the Judiciary Committee, the Judiciary 
Committee, has no interest in some fundamental questions, like 
who leaked the draft of the Dobbs decision? Or why isn't the 
Justice Department enforcing the law to protect Supreme Court 
Justices from intimidation at their own homes? Or did the 
Justice Department really interfere in the 2016 and 2020 
presidential elections? Those are important questions.
    This is a theatre of the absurd, and it's how the left 
operates, outrageous and slanderous claims, and when they're 
thoroughly debunked, they just move on to the next target.
    Mr. Chair, I am sincerely embarrassed for you. I'm 
sincerely embarrassed for your colleagues. This hearing puts a 
punctuation mark on the whole sad proceedings of this 
Committee.
    My problem in asking questions is simple facts are so 
damning against the Democrats as to make any further commentary 
pointless. So, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.
    I'll simply ask Mr. Paoletta for any thoughts that he has 
in my remaining time.
    Mr. Paoletta. Mr. McClintock, thanks for the opportunity.
    It's just, as I said in my opening statement, we're left 
with relying on the credibility of Mr. Schenck's word. I 
noticed because, of course, he didn't turn his testimony in 
until 10 minutes before the hearing, when I think the rest of 
us did the night before by 6 o'clock. So, we couldn't cross-
check it before the hearing. He says--there was an interesting 
story line in one of his comments. I pulled up a Christian News 
wire story from I think the day of the Hobby Lobby--what was--
of the decision. He's referencing the fact that on the day of 
the oral argument, he claims in here that--I'll read it.

        On the day their case was argued before the Justices, Reverend 
        Schenck led the Greens and the Hahn family, owners of Conestoga 
        Wood Specialties, for an unprecedented prayer service in the 
        Supreme Court dining room just before they all entered the 
        courtroom.

    I thought that was impossible to be having a prayer service 
on a day of oral argument in the dining room. Okay. The Supreme 
Court is a pretty locked-down place in general. When they're 
doing oral arguments, it's very locked down for things like 
that.
    If you look at his testimony today, he says, ``On March 25, 
I attended the oral argument in the Hobby Lobby case, having 
obtained a reserved seat from the Marshal's office.'' Earlier 
that day, I convened a prayer service in the Supreme Court's 
cafeteria dining area, which attorneys for both Hobby Lobby had 
attended.
    So, he's changed it completely from this behind-the-scenes 
sort of access of going into the dining room of the Supreme 
Court to the cafeteria, which is literally open to the public 
when you're there. So, again, this is, just--there's so many of 
these things.
    Again, going back to what Congressman Jordan had brought up 
about this, his book, which I saw this weekend, about how he 
was so happy that Chief Justice Rehnquist had said Reverend 
Paul Schenck as he called up the case, and it's a complete lie.
    Now, if you look at Mr. Schenck's book, he had to have 
looked back at that because it has the caption of the case. 
Like, he had to go back and look at what was actually said to 
write his book. So, back in 2018 when this book came out, he 
was looking--and he literally invented that scene, but he put 
that word in there for Chief Justice Rehnquist to say, so he 
could support his story line that somehow he had overcome all 
these naysayers and gotten the Court to put Reverend in his 
name.
    So, that is why he's not a reliable, narrator of the truth 
as I say.
    Mr. McClintock. Al contraire. He's the Democrats' star 
Witness in this. It's upon his ridiculous testimony they base 
this entire hearing, their last hearing of this session. I 
think it's a reflection on them more than anything. As I said, 
I think it is a fitting way to end a pathetic session of this 
Congress and the work of this Judiciary Committee.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman yields back.
    I will now recognize the gentlelady from the State of 
Washington, Representative Jayapal for five minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you all very much for being with us today.
    Blatant moral and ethical violations in the Supreme Court, 
the highest court in the land, have eroded America's trust in 
our system. From Justice Clarence Thomas's failure to recuse 
himself after his wife's questionable January 6th-related 
activities to lavish private dinners and trips paid for by 
wealthy donors, the Supreme Court is long overdue for a more 
ethical Code of Conduct.
    I wanted to focus on how wealthy donors cozy up to Justices 
and influence SCOTUS decisions.
    Reverend Schenck, it's been reported that you trained your 
stealth missionaries to get to know the conservative Justices 
at a personal level and support their conservative viewpoints 
through faith.
    Did you instruct them to talk to Justices in a specific 
way? What were they trained to say or not say?
    Mr. Schenck. Thank you, Representative Jayapal.
    Yes, I did. We had orientations. We told them what would be 
appropriate, even how to address the Justices, and then to find 
areas of commonality that might establish a rapport. That 
proved to be very effective.
    Ms. Jayapal. Were these Justices aware that you were 
seeking to influence or embolden their decisionmaking on the 
bench, or at least encourage or support more hard-line or 
conservative-leaning positions?
    Mr. Schenck. I'm not certainly how to answer that because I 
didn't--I wasn't inside their thinking. Over time, I felt that 
our presence there became more welcome, and that was just 
registered by the amount of invitations that they extended to 
our stealth missionaries for conversation and even visits 
inside chambers.
    Ms. Jayapal. Can you talk about how the messaging, 
particularly prayers in the company of conservative Justices, 
were shaped as political?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes. I was trained that prayer should always 
end with an uncertainty and a submission to the will of God, 
whatever that may be. On the other hand, there's another kind 
of prayer that telegraphs a different kind of message. When you 
pray for a specific outcome, it is not necessarily conversation 
with the Divine anymore; it's a conversation between two 
persons and of a privileged nature because very few people will 
interrupt a prayer. So, you can get through the cases you're 
making in a very effective way.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, a wealthy interest group regularly wines 
and dines the Supreme Court Justices for the specific purpose 
of swaying opinions on landmark cases that will affect millions 
of Americans.
    Members of Congress have already requested that the Supreme 
Court launch an inquiry into these claims. Has the Supreme 
Court demonstrated any openness to an investigation, Mr. 
Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. Not that I'm aware of. The Court has no 
transparent process for either receiving or investigating 
complaints or allegations of ethical misconduct, which we have 
seen both with respect to the Dobbs leak and the allegations 
made by Reverend Schenck here, which, again, pales in 
comparison to the transparency and accountability measures, 
both in the Executive Branch and in Congress.
    Ms. Jayapal. Professor Fredrickson, why is explicit 
partisanship concerning when it's demonstrated by Members of 
the Judiciary? Why would we generally want Justices to appear 
nonpartisan? Is it the same as appearing impartial? I think 
this is important for the whole country to understand.
    Ms. Fredrickson. Both of those are critical elements for 
the Judiciary, to be nonpartisan and to be impartial. 
Obviously, unlike Members of Congress and the President, they 
are not elected. They serve under good behavior, which is 
generally been understood to be for life. It means that we 
really do need to have a belief in their honesty and their 
adherence to Rule of Law. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, 
we have to remember what Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 
78, which is that the Judiciary is the least dangerous branch 
because it has neither purse nor sword, unlike the Executive or 
the Congress, and that its power is in the public confidence 
and the faith in their adherence to Rule of Law. If they start 
to lose the public confidence, then we lose our Rule of Law.
    Ms. Jayapal. In fact, that's already happened. We've seen a 
historic drop in public confidence. If the American people 
can't trust the independence of the Judiciary, of the 
decisions, the very foundations of our democracy are 
threatened.
    It's why I introduced H.R. 7706, the Judicial Ethics and 
Anticorruption Act, which bans Federal judges from owning 
conflicted assets and a number of other things.
    I know my time has expired, so, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Next, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    To Mr. Paoletta, as many of my colleagues have noted, 
following the leak in the decision in the Dobbs case there were 
several instances of fanatics professing anti-life views 
targeting, destroying, and vandalizing numerous pro-life 
facilities and groups to further their political cause.
    I led a letter to Attorney General Garland with my 
colleagues from Wisconsin regarding a specific case of arson 
that you may have heard of against a pro-life office in 
Madison, Wisconsin. Six months later, there still has been no 
arrest in that case. Many people, including the head of 
Wisconsin Family Action, are rightfully questioning whether 
State and Federal law enforcement are not pursuing this case 
simply because it was against a pro-life facility.
    I share the frustrations with the lack of justice in this 
case. So, could you answer for me: What can Congress do to shed 
more light on these attacks and ensure that law enforcement is 
doing their job diligently in these specific instances?
    Mr. Paoletta. Congressman, I think it's very troubling that 
the Department of Justice has done nothing in response to all 
these attacks. It's really--these attacks have been despicable, 
and the fact that the Department of Justice I don't think has 
done anything in response to them is truly troubling. I think 
Congress should have looked into it long ago. Perhaps, in the 
new Congress investigating the Department of Justice for why 
they didn't look into these attacks is a good use of time and 
accountability. If you want to talk about accountability and 
transparency, let's see why the Department of Justice hasn't 
done anything to protect these tremendous organizations that 
help women who are in trouble.
    You see Democrats in Congress belittling these 
organizations. I think I saw Senator Warren saying they were 
con organizations or something like that, really just offensive 
comments.
    So, that's what I would hope Congress would do in the next 
Congress.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good.
    Just to follow up. The Dobbs draft opinion was leaked 
months ago. Despite an investigation, as we know, the leaker 
still has not been identified. We are circulating an 
accountability Act that would specifically focus on leaks, 
which would make it a crime to leak any of this confidential 
information from the Supreme Court.
    Do you see a path to ever finding this specific person for 
the leak? Then, ultimately do you think that we can hold them 
accountable?
    I think the frustration that many Members of Congress are 
expressing at this point is that there aren't many secrets in 
this town. For some reason, this individual has certainly been 
sheltered, and there is absolutely, I think, evidence that 
there are specific people that know who this purpose is, and 
why they haven't been identified at this point is beyond me.
    Mr. Paoletta. It was, again, a despicable act, whoever 
leaked that opinion, in my view, trying to bring down the 
Supreme Court and the integrity and the working relationships 
among the Justices in terms of doing their work.
    So, I join you. I hope the leaker is found and held 
accountable. We can speculate all day as to who did it and how 
they did it. I assume that this person was careful and thought 
it through before they did it. I'm not sure we'll ever find 
that person in the near-term. I hope we do, but it was a 
despicable act.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good.
    I have one more question for you. During the Trump 
Administration, Congressional Democrats and leftist 
organizations used dark-money allegations to criticize the 
Trump Administration and the Senate's success in confirming 
conservative judicial nominees. However, Democrats conveniently 
ignored their role in using dark money groups. Democrats' 
active role in lobbying against judicial nominees can be traced 
back to the partisan campaign led by then Senate Judiciary 
Chair, Joe Biden, against the Reagan Supreme Court nominee, 
Judge Bork, that we're all familiar with.
    More recently, Demand Justice reportedly sought to spend $5 
million to try and block the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.
    Additionally, Amalgamated Charitable Foundation is a 
501(c)(3) and a donor advise fund, which is basically a 
charitable savings account for donors. It was created by the 
labor unions and Amalgamated Bank to support left-wing causes.
    My question would be, just to kind of sum this up, would 
be, is there a way of tracing this dark money? How prevalent do 
you think it is in the system? As far as you can tell, why do 
you think that there's this double standard that exists between 
any times you talk about dark money on one side versus another?
    Mr. Paoletta. Look, the First Amendment is important and 
for people to be able to contribute and have the anonymity 
protected and to have, you know, the free flow of exchange and 
sort of efficacy. There is a wicked double standard that the 
Democrats--I think when you look at the amount of money that is 
spent on either side, I think it's Arabella Advisors and all of 
their tentacles far exceed anything that the conservatives or--
I don't know that for sure, but I think that's right. So, it's 
a double standard. You know, I'm not--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman's time has expired. 
If you would just wrap up.
    Mr. Paoletta. It's a double standard.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. We'll now go to the gentleman from 
California, Representative Swalwell for five minutes.
    Mr. Swalwell. I thank the Chair.
    At the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Jordan alluded to 
threats that were made toward Judges Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and 
others, and I want to make it clear that I, and I believe most 
of my colleagues have denounced any threats of violence that 
have been made to any judges, to any public officials. That's 
not how we conduct ourselves in this country. We enact the will 
of the people through voting, not through violence.
    I do want to ask the Ranking Member, because he wants to 
have this conversation. Will he, after tweeting this morning a 
tweet that said: ``The left attacks Justices Thomas and Alito 
because they're standing up for the Rule of Law, the 
Constitution, and freedom.'' Will the Ranking Member denounce 
what the former President said last week when he said: ``A 
massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the 
termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those 
found in the Constitution.''
    So, I will wait after my time is up to see if the Ranking 
Member endorses Donald Trump's call to terminate the 
Constitution, because the Ranking Member seems to have a high 
interest in protecting it, or if he will continue to be silent, 
and I think we should all conclude that his silence is 
complicity.
    Since we're on the topic of denouncing violence, will the 
Ranking Member also denounce the tweet that he put out praising 
Kanye West. He tweeted: Kanye. Elon. Trump. Kanye went on after 
that tweet, of course, to say that he's going to declare a war 
on Jews, and, also, that he would go on to praise Hitler.
    So, I will wait again for the Ranking Member. Does he stand 
with Kanye and his hatred of Jews and love for Adolf Hitler, or 
will he denounce it? Again, we will wait to see because the 
Ranking Member has a lot of opinions, Mr. Jordan, about what 
others should be denouncing. So, we will wait to see what you 
can do.
    Moving on to Mr. Schenck. Mr. Schenck, thank you for coming 
forward. Your testimony is important as Americans wonder if the 
Supreme Court can be independent and credible.
    I have to ask you for the sake of your own credibility, are 
you being paid by anyone for your testimony today?
    Mr. Schenck. No.
    Mr. Swalwell. Have you been paid by anyone for this story 
that was printed in The New York Times about what you heard 
eight years ago?
    Mr. Schenck. No, Congressman.
    Mr. Swalwell. In fact, have you received threats, including 
death threats, because of what you've said?
    Mr. Schenck. I don't know if they rise to death threats. 
They have certainly been quite menacing. Yes, I have received 
those kinds of threats. It's been very costly for me, both for 
the current organization that I'm leading, for me personally, 
and most especially for the duress on my family.
    Mr. Swalwell. Well, I'm sorry to hear that as someone who 
receives the same types of threats and thinks about their 
family first.
    I have to ask then, if you're not being paid for coming 
forward with this information, and you are suffering threats to 
yourself and your family and your personal finances, why did 
you come?
    Mr. Schenck. For three reasons, Congressman. First, I felt 
it was a moral obligation. Second, in this season of my life in 
ministry, I made a new resolution that truth telling should be 
at the core of everything that I do. Finally, I think it's in 
the best interests of the country. I think it's in the best 
interests of the Court where I spent 20 years, and still have 
great respect for the institution and almost venerated in a 
sense. Its integrity is critical to its success and role in our 
democracy.
    So, those are the three principal reasons I'm here. There 
are more, but they haven't come without cost.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Reverend. God bless you and your 
family as you come forward with the truth.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back. I will sit here to see if Jim 
Jordan will address Donald Trump's threats to the Constitution 
or if Mr. Jordan will just simply look the other way.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Swalwell, would you yield your 
balance to the gentleman--
    Mr. Swalwell. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. --Mr. Jordan?
    I think, Mr. Jordan, are you--okay. Mr. Jordan wanted a 
couple of seconds to answer.
    Mr. Swalwell. Yes. Will Mr. Jordan denounce President 
Trump's termination of the Constitution?
    Mr. Jordan. President Trump has clarified his comments 
regarding the Constitution. He put out another post, I think a 
day or so later, maybe even the next day. I can't recall.
    Everyone knows President Trump, there's no way this guy is 
anti-Semitic. This guy was the most pro-Israel President in 
history, put the embassy back in Jerusalem. Abraham--the most 
pro-Israel President we've ever had, did more in foreign policy 
in the Middle East than any President we've ever had, so--
    Mr. Swalwell. Do you denounce your tweet praising Kanye 
West?
    Mr. Jordan. That tweet was not our account. That tweet--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Jordan. No. It's my time.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. He yielded the balance of his time.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, he's over time. I haven't used my time 
yet.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No, you have not.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, I'll let Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Bishop, and 
then I'll come back. I have a lot of questions for these 
Witnesses.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair will recognize the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz, for five minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Let me start by saying it used to be the case on Palm Beach 
Island that at the private clubs, no Blacks or Jews were even 
allowed to be members or invited as members, and it was 
actually Donald Trump, before he was in politics, that made 
that very important change so that we weren't treating people 
differently based on their immutable traits.
    I also want to say on the subject of this hearing, when it 
comes to Supreme Court ethics and guardrails, I am supportive 
of bipartisan efforts to have some sort of an ethics construct 
on the Court. I don't understand why Congress is subject to 
ethics rules, the Executive is subject to ethics rules. Because 
we put a black robe on somebody and give them a lifetime 
appointment, all the sudden when they fail to enact their own 
ethics rules, we just allow that to occur?
    To my friends on the right, like, if you can buy off 
Supreme Court Justices, the left is definitely going to end up 
being way better at that than we are. So, I would suggest in 
the next Congress when this is more than just a theatrical 
exercise, we actually work together on opportunities to have 
strong ethics requirements that enhance the public perception 
of the Court.
    I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Schenck, how did The New York Times get the story?
    Mr. Schenck. They called me and asked me to confirm facts 
surrounding what they had heard about a 2014 leak of the Hobby 
Lobby decision.
    Mr. Jordan. What prompted them to call you?
    Mr. Schenck. They said they had learned some facts about 
the case, and they were asking me if it was true.
    Mr. Jordan. From whom?
    Mr. Schenck. They did not--the reporters did not tell me 
from whom they learned it.
    Mr. Jordan. Just out of the clear, blue sky, they come say, 
hey, did Ms. Wright at a dinner party hear from Justice Alito 
the outcome of a pending case, in particular, the Hobby Lobby 
case? Did she call you? How did they know the facts, the 
alleged facts? Because they're not facts. I don't think it 
happened.
    Mr. Schenck. That was not the question they asked me. The 
first call from reporter Jodi Kantor, I think it was something 
along the lines of, we are aware of a possible prior leak, and 
that you were involved. Can we ask you some questions about 
that? It was words to that effect.
    Mr. Jordan. What did you say then?
    Mr. Schenck. I said I was not prepared to talk about that.
    Mr. Jordan. Okay. Then you subsequently talked to The New 
York Times. So, when did you call them back?
    Mr. Schenck. It was probably days to--I would say certainly 
multiple days. I was very conflicted. I wanted to keep this a 
private matter. I did not intend to go public with it.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, do you remember the date that you did 
call The New York Times back and tell them the alleged story 
that you have shared here today?
    Mr. Schenck. It may have been late May. I would have to 
consult my notes on that, but--
    Mr. Jordan. Let me ask it this way: You said this to The 
New York Times after the actual leak of the Dobbs opinion?
    Mr. Schenck. Let me think about that for a minute, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Jordan. I just want--I'm trying to figure out where it 
fits in. You have the Dobbs leak on May 2. You write a letter 
to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, on 
June 7.
    When did you talk to The New York Times?
    Mr. Schenck. Sometime--I would have to check again, but it 
was sometime in late May to early June.
    Mr. Jordan. Before you sent--so it was more important to 
talk to the press about this leak than it was to send--put the 
Court on notice of something that's so egregious that you're 
here today testifying in front of Congress?
    Mr. Schenck. Oh, I was in great turmoil about the whole 
matter, Congressman. I was literally praying on it. I was 
agonizing over it--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, I appreciate that.
    Mr. Schenck. --what I should do about it.
    Mr. Jordan. It's important. I appreciate that.
    You did it before you sent the letter to the Chief Justice?
    Mr. Schenck. Off the record. Strictly off the record, I did 
answer some questions.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, now we're talking off the record. Why off 
the record? If it's so darn important you're praying for it, 
why not just tell them? More importantly, if you really want 
this to happen, why not go to the Chief Justice first? Why not 
go to the Court first? If you're so concerned this is so 
egregious, we've got to come forward even though--why not do 
that? But no, no. You said I'm going to go off the record with 
The New York Times.
    Mr. Schenck. I wonder, Mr. Jordan, have you ever dealt with 
the Chief Justice? I wasn't sure I wanted to get called in by 
the Chief Justice.
    Mr. Jordan. I do a call with the Chief Justice. We do a 
call where we talk about the Courts and the whole system.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, Mr. Jordan, maybe the reason that he was 
off the record then was because there was no book deal.
    Mr. Jordan. Maybe, maybe. My time is up.
    Mr. Schenck. Could I ask just to your comment, Mr. Gaetz? I 
couldn't hear that. I'm so sorry.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yeah. Maybe a book deal--
    Mr. Schenck. There was no book deal.
    Mr. Gaetz. --would be a motivator.
    Mr. Schenck. No, absolutely no book deal. There was no book 
deal, no consideration of a book deal.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We'll now go to the gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I heard some disturbing comments from my colleagues across 
the aisle today that somehow, we need to not criticize the 
Supreme Court, that we need not to attack the legitimacy. That 
is just absolutely wrong. We are coequal ranks of government. 
Our job is to conduct oversight over the other branches of 
government, including the Supreme Court. If they have self-
inflicted wounds, if they do bad things, it's our job to 
criticize them and to show that to the public. We are not here 
to prop up institutions if they don't deserve to be.
    Now, one reason the United States Supreme Court is at its 
lowest approval rating in U.S. history is because multiple 
Supreme Court Justices lied to the American people.
    So, I have some questions for Professor Fredrickson. These 
Justices lied during their confirmation hearings, and this is 
how we know. In the Dobbs majority opinion, the majority states 
that Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Justices Gorsuch 
and Kavanaugh signed under that opinion. They had to know at 
the time of their confirmation hearings that Roe was 
egregiously wrong from the start.
    So, Professor Fredrickson, did Justice Kavanaugh tell the 
American people under oath during his confirmation hearings 
that Roe was egregiously wrong from the start?
    Ms. Fredrickson. No, I don't believe so.
    Mr. Lieu. Did Justice Gorsuch tell the American people that 
he believed Roe was egregiously wrong from the start?
    Ms. Fredrickson. No, I don't believe so.
    Mr. Lieu. In fact, they did exactly the opposite. Justices 
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch went out of their way to assure the 
United States Senators under oath and the American people that 
they view Roe as settled precedent. In fact, he told Senator 
Lindsey Graham that he would have walked out the door had Trump 
asked him to overturn Roe. Justice Gorsuch said:

        I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a 
        precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been 
        reaffirmed. A good judge will consider it as precedent of U.S. 
        Supreme Court worthy of treatment as precedent like any other.

He did not say Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.
    Then Justice Kavanaugh had the following to say. He said: 
``It is settled as a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, 
entitled to the respect under principles of stare decisis.'' 
The Supreme Court has recognized a right to abortion since the 
1973 Roe v. Wade case and has reaffirmed it many times. 
Kavanaugh did not say that Roe was egregiously wrong from the 
start.
    These two Justices lied to the American people. They went 
out of their way to assure U.S. Senators and the American 
people that they viewed Roe v. Wade as settled precedent. That 
is one reason the U.S. Supreme Court is at its lowest approval 
rating in history. That's why we need to also pass a Supreme 
Court Code of Ethics.
    Then in my remaining time, I would like to ask Reverend 
Schenck some questions. So, clearly, when The New York Times 
called you and asked you about the Supreme Court, they already 
had information that there was a leak of the Hobby Lobby 
decision. Is that correct?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. Based on that article and the leak of the Hobby 
Lobby decision, it is certainly possible that the Dobbs 
decision was actually leaked by conservatives on the Court. 
Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Schenck. I'm not sure I can answer that, Congressman.
    Mr. Lieu. So, I'll dismiss it. It's certainly possible. My 
Republican colleagues are adamant this leak came from the 
liberal Justices. There's no evidence of that. The evidence 
could certainly point to conservatives leaking this, to hold 
the conservative Justices to that opinion.
    So, I wish my Republican colleagues would stop sneering the 
left of liberal Justices for leaking this when there's no 
evidence that they did so.
    Then, let's talk about what Congress did to protect Supreme 
Court Justices. We passed a law. We voted on the floor a bill 
to help protect Supreme Court Justices, and I know it was 
conservatives that refused to protect Supreme Court Justice law 
clerks with that same production. I think that's shameful. I 
think Supreme Court clerks should also be protected.
    When we talk about actual political violence, you know who 
had their skull hit by a hammer? It was a spouse of the Speaker 
of the House. Multiple Republicans made fun of that. They 
circulate conspiracy theories. They said all sorts of things 
that were not true. Republicans should be ashamed for doing 
that.
    So, please stop whining about threats to Supreme Court 
Justices when the actual violence of a person being hit in the 
head with a hammer, had to go to surgery was a spouse of the 
Democratic Speaker of the House.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair will now recognize the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Bishop, for five minutes.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I think Mr. Lieu is pretty far afield on a couple of 
things.
    Professor Fredrickson, could I just ask this? Do you 
endorse the rhetoric just used that Justices lied when they 
testified to the Senate Committee that Roe--that they were 
effectively open-minded about Roe, that Roe was established law 
and stare decisis follows the principles that exist in law?
    Ms. Fredrickson. Respectfully, Mr. Congressman, I'm here to 
talk about this bill, and I think we should stick to this 
conversation about the ethics--
    Mr. Bishop. Yeah, but you don't get to tell me what the 
questions are here. I get to decide. So, you can tell me you 
refuse to answer the question I ask, and that would be 
revealing enough.
    Do you endorse the notion that those Justices lied as Mr. 
Lieu just accused them?
    Ms. Fredrickson. I have no idea whether they lied or 
whether they simply changed their minds because, as Reverend 
Schenck said earlier, ``we don't know what's going on inside 
their minds.''
    Mr. Bishop. Isn't it correct--
    Ms. Fredrickson. They certainly did change positions quite 
radically.
    Mr. Bishop. Isn't it correct that a judge reserves judgment 
on an issue to come before them until that case is presented? 
Isn't that the proper discord--or proper approach for a judge?
    Ms. Fredrickson. Indeed. However, when they're asked about 
whether there is existing precedent, they're also--generally, 
would confirm that there's existing precedent. If they say 
they're going to abide by it, one would assume they would abide 
by it.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you think it's ethical to smear a Justice by 
confusing the public about that, by suggesting that Justices 
being examined by a Senate Committee are lying when they're, in 
fact, reserving judgment as to an issue that is not yet 
presented?
    Ms. Fredrickson. Unfortunately, the biggest ethics smear 
for Supreme Court Justices right now is all the information 
that has been coming out about the trips--
    Mr. Bishop. Right. You are now answering something else. I 
asked you if what I propose to you is ethical. Is it ethical to 
smear a Justice by doing that?
    Ms. Fredrickson. You asked me whether the public would 
consider those to be ethics problems if we were--
    Mr. Bishop. No. That's not what I asked you.
    Ms. Fredrickson. The perception of--
    Mr. Bishop. I'll reclaim my time if you're not going to 
answer my question.
    Let me move to Mr. Schenck. Mr. Schenck, in a blog post you 
wrote recently--it's up here on the--yeah, I'm sure you've seen 
it here today. It says: ``In my 64-plus years, I've not only 
believed a fair number of consequential lies, I've promulgated 
them.''
    Although the Chair said it was unseemly in some way, before 
the Chair said that, Mr. Jordan, rather devastatingly, cross-
examined you about a claim you made in your book. So, you've 
proclaimed that you are a liar, or you have been a liar.
    Do you think it's ethical for this Committee, for the 
majority of this Committee to bring in an inveterate--who's 
whispering in your ear? Mr. Schenck, who is it that is 
whispering in your ear as you're testifying?
    Mr. Schenck. My counsel.
    Mr. Bishop. That's your lawyer. So, he's advising you in 
your ear while you're getting this question? Okay. I just 
wanted--
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Voice. It is his right to counsel.
    Mr. Bishop. No, absolutely. I just want to know who's 
whispering in your ear.
    Do you think it's ethical for the majority of this 
Committee to bring in someone who has professed to have been a 
liar, been demonstrated to be a liar, to cast aspersions on a 
Supreme Court Justice for the purpose of bringing the Court 
into disrepute?
    Mr. Schenck. Congressman, the Members of--some Members of 
this Committee with whom I've spent time in prayer, Bible 
study, many visits, there are Members of this Committee who 
have visited my headquarters building on numerous occasions to 
participate in events there, no. All during the years that I 
was an advocate for certain causes, I was a passionate believer 
in them.
    At this stage of my life, and at this part of my journey, I 
look back and realize that many of the things that I 
promulgated were not true.
    Mr. Bishop. So, did you know at the time they were not 
true?
    Mr. Schenck. I did not know at the time.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay. So, you did not know the difference 
between the truth and a lie?
    Mr. Schenck. One of them--
    Mr. Bishop. Let me ask you this question. The thing that 
you say that you did, you encouraged wealthy donors to 
insinuate themselves with Supreme Court Justices in hopes of 
influencing them. Was that unethical?
    Mr. Schenck. I'm not an expert on judicial ethics. I don't 
know anything--
    Mr. Bishop. I didn't set any preconditions. Was it 
unethical? Can you say that was an unethical thing to do?
    Mr. Schenck. It violated Christian ethics.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay. So, you--all right.
    You're the person that they decided to bring in here as a 
Witness? That says a lot.
    I think to Mr. Gaetz's point earlier, I don't know exactly 
how the Supreme Court ought to have a Code of Ethics or whether 
it will change something important. I do think a lot of people 
want to use it tactically to prevent them from doing their 
jobs, but nothing is new here over the hearings we have had 
before, except Mr. Schenck's testimony. The Witness they 
decided to bring in speaks for itself.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair will next recognize the 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, for five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Fredrickson, do most State Courts of Appeal or State 
Supreme Courts have a Code of Ethics?
    Ms. Fredrickson. Yes. I believe most courts in the world 
have a Code of Ethics.
    Mr. Raskin. So, the high courts of countries in Europe, 
Asia, and Africa would be governed by Code of Ethics?
    Ms. Fredrickson. So, I understand, yes.
    Mr. Raskin. Do you recognize this quote:

        No man is allowed to be a judge in his own case or cause, 
        because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, 
        not improbably, corrupt his integrity.

    Ms. Fredrickson. Yes, indeed.
    Mr. Raskin. Where is that from?
    Ms. Fredrickson. Well, it comes from the Latin, ``No man 
may be a judge of his own cause.''
    Mr. Raskin. This is James Madison's statement in the 
Federalist Papers in Federalist 10. Defining this is a cardinal 
principle of our law.
    So, leaving aside the questions of the leaks and this 
Witness, and so on, do you think it should be something that 
everybody across the country should be able to accept that the 
Supreme Court of the United States should be governed by a Code 
of Ethics?
    Ms. Fredrickson. Indeed, I do. I was heartened by Mr. 
Gaetz's comments, and I understand that Mr. Issa in the past 
has also supported legislation that would impose ethics 
obligations on the Court.
    Mr. Raskin. Is there anyone on the panel who disagrees with 
what Mr. Gaetz said a few moments ago, that this Court should 
undertake a rigorous examination of how we can arrive at a 
serious Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court?
    Does anybody disagree? No. Okay. No. All right.
    Let the record reflect that.
    Now, Mr. Schenck, they call you a liar. They call you 
deceitful. They call you manipulative, exploitative, and so on.
    I take it that they weren't calling you that when you were 
in service of the right-wing religious agenda, though, right, 
or were these same forces attacking you then?
    Mr. Schenck. No, Mr. Raskin. In fact, I enjoyed quite a bit 
of support from some of those same voices.
    Mr. Raskin. In fact, you were part of that right-wing 
religious movement, weren't you?
    Mr. Schenck. I was.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. How long were you part of that movement?
    Mr. Schenck. Thirty-five years.
    Mr. Raskin. So, whatever your character is, you might be 
considered by some to be a saint, you might be considered by 
some to be Satan's spawn, or you might be considered a normal 
person with virtues and vices and strengths and flaws. In any 
event, has your character changed over the course of your life?
    Mr. Schenck. No, Mr. Raskin, I think I have been 
consistent. I have been through some marked changes, I 
described as conversions that I think are important along the 
path.
    Mr. Raskin. Explain the conversion that would help us 
understand why people who would ordinarily be embracing you if 
you were still saying the same things you were saying for many 
decades are now attacking you. What was the conversion you went 
through that's made them turn on you?
    Because we've seen this many times in this Committee and 
next door in the Oversight Committee. I remember when Michael 
Cohen came, and he was Donald Trump's loyal sycophantic, 
obsequious lawyer for years and years, and they all defended 
him. Then when he said, ``I can't take it anymore and I'm going 
to tell the truth about Donald Trump,'' they turned on him. 
Then suddenly they discovered he was a liar, he was deceitful, 
he was manipulative.
    So, what happened to you?
    Mr. Schenck. For the last few years of my teen years and 
the entirety of my adult life, I have been a committed 
evangelical Christian. What I came to see in the last 12 years 
was how my faith and that of the community that I have been a 
part of all these years was politically coopted in what I call 
a Faustian pact with the Republican Party. When my eyes were 
opened to that, it changed my opinion on many things, including 
the stand I had taken on abortion since--
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. So, you didn't want to be part of the 
cooptation. You didn't want to be part of the political 
exploitation. You don't want to be part of the political 
domination anymore. Whether people think that you're the 
greatest hit in the world or the biggest jerk, this is a 
sincere religious revelation that you've had. Is that right?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. This is sincere in terms of your religious 
conviction?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. The people who never attacked you before 
are suddenly attacking you now. Is that right?
    Mr. Schenck. That's right.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Biggs. I have a unanimous consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent to submit for the record the letters of 
Reverend Dr. Myke D. Crowder, Senior Pastor of Christian Life 
Center in Layton, Utah, about Mr. Schenck, and the statement of 
Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair will now recognize the 
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Demings, for five minutes.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to our Witnesses, to all of you who are being 
here today.
    I have to say, as I sit here as a former police officer and 
a police chief, this is one of the strangest discussions. It's 
interesting that we are not having this discussion in a more 
proactive way.
    It was even suggested earlier, as we talked about holding 
the Court accountable, it was suggested that it was an effort 
to try to intimidate the Court. That's the strangest--that's 
pretty strange. See, I have always operated under a belief that 
everybody counts, but everybody is accountable.
    Growing up in this wonderful country that we enjoy, I have 
admired the Supreme Court since I was a child. No one could've 
ever made me believe that they could be compromised.
    I don't think we can sit here, any of us can sit here and 
say that their approval rating that has plummeted is something 
that we can ignore.
    I think about some of the landmark decisions, certainly as 
a person growing up in Florida, and as a law enforcement 
officer, like Miranda v. Arizona. It says that a person does 
not have the ability to self-incrimination.
    I think about Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, that 
racial discrimination in public schools was unconstitutional.
    I think about Gideon v. Wainwright that says that every 
person, every defendant should have access to an attorney 
regardless of their ability to pay.
    That's the America that I support, and that's the Supreme 
Court that I remember.
    Whether you're looking back in history or we're moving 
forward, we should be very concerned about what's going on in 
the Court, the final arbiter of decisions that come before the 
Court, decisions that affect people's lives.
    America, as they have in these cases, and as they should be 
able today and moving forward, should be able to defend and 
have full confidence in the Supreme Court.
    As a former police chief, the most junior police officer on 
the force was subject to a Code of Ethics. They had to 
disclose--police chiefs--we had to disclose any gifts or 
income, travel, and all those things.
    I just don't--and the reason is so we cannot be 
compromised. Then the appearance, the perception of compromise 
also should matter. So, I'm not really sure why we would be 
pushing back today against a Code of Ethics for the United 
States Supreme Court.
    I'm glad for all our Witnesses and the information that 
you've given. Mr. Paoletta, I just have to ask you, why do you 
believe that the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiter 
in some very critical decisions that affect people's lives for 
a lifetime potentially, that they should not be subject to a 
Code of Ethics or standard of conduct.
    Mr. Paoletta. I think the Chief Justice has said that they 
consult the Code of Ethics, the one that's--
    Ms. Demings. I saw that, that they consult it.
    Mr. Paoletta. Yeah, yeah.
    Ms. Demings. We didn't leave it to police officers to 
consult it. It wasn't enough.
    Mr. Paoletta. My objection--yeah. My objection--
    Ms. Demings. I just want to hear what's the fear of having 
a Code of Ethics--
    Mr. Paoletta. Yeah. Sure. Right.
    Ms. Demings. --for people who will make decisions that can 
affect us for the rest of our lives? What's the hesitation 
there?
    Mr. Paoletta. Sure. I come to testify because I object to 
the gaslighting of the Supreme Court. All of the things that 
you're raising now--
    Ms. Demings. Okay. I hear that, and I understand that, and 
we need to knock it off, because we need to get this right.
    I heard my colleague from Florida, Mr. Gaetz, say we're on 
the same sheet of music, that I think there is room for this to 
happen.
    I want to know why you believe that there is no need, it's 
not necessary for the Supreme Court--
    Mr. Paoletta. Again, as I said, when you look at the 
Supreme Court approval rating back in the day when Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg's husband was appearing before the Supreme Court and 
she was ruling on her husband's law firm's cases, when she was 
speaking before the NOW Legal Defense Fund and being honored by 
them, donating a signed VMI opinion that she wrote--
    Ms. Demings. Whether it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg or any 
Justice, why do you believe they should not be subject to a 
Code of Ethics?
    Mr. Paoletta. Right. I just didn't hear a Democratic 
Congress talking about this Code of Ethics back--
    Ms. Demings. We're talking about it now. Sometimes we're 
late.
    Mr. Paoletta. I understand that--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Paoletta. I understand it. It's just, it wasn't talked 
about in the past, and so that's my objection to this 
discussion.
    Ms. Demings. I haven't heard a reason why you really 
believe they should not be subject.
    Mr. Chair, thank you for your endurance. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chair, may I be recognized for a unanimous 
consent request?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman is recognized for 
that purpose.
    Mr. Bishop. I thank the Chair. I offer for the record, from 
The Daily Signal, May 6, 2022, a piece entitled, ``Left's 
Attack on Conservative Justices is Attempt to Delegitimize 
Supreme Court''; an article from The Federalist entitled, ``New 
York Times Knowingly Printed False Smear of Justice Thomas' 
Wife''; from The Wall Street Journal, opinion piece, ``The 
Hypocrisy of Supreme Court Ethics Journalism''; from The 
Federalist, ``The New Yorker Lies Again About Clarence Thomas 
And His Wife''; and from The Daily Caller, ``Paoletta: Leftist 
Tantrum Targets Spouses In Latest Attack To Undermine SCOTUS' 
Legitimacy.''
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]


      

                       MR. BISHOP FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair will now recognize the 
gentlelady from Texas, Representative Jackson Lee, for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair very much.
    Let me put it on the record that I have no desire to 
undermine the Supreme Court. I am, in fact, an Earl Warren 
Legal Scholar. I was so honored to have received that honor as 
I entered into the University of Virginia School of Law. So, I 
take great umbrage with that suggestion. I am going to suggest 
that we have some problems that need to be fixed.
    Professor Fredrickson, it's good to see you. You've been 
before our Committee before.
    I had already heard from the distinguished gentleman, Mr. 
Paoletta.
    It should be well noted that we do have a factual basis, 
not presently before this Committee, that the wife of a Justice 
was actively engaged in January 6 in terms of its advocacy and 
other aspects of her participation.
    For me, that strikes at the core of creating a more perfect 
union and the upholding of the Constitution that is a 
responsibility of the United States Supreme Court.
    Let it be very clear. Ethics bounds us all. We walk in 
ethics in most aspects of Americans' interaction. There are 
corporate ethics that sometimes are followed and not. There are 
ethics in school boards. There are ethics in the University of 
Virginia that has its own internal student judicial system. 
Because people believe that you should adhere to the truth.
    So, let me first quickly go to professor--or Reverend 
Schenck.
    Thank you for indicating that you are a simple man of God 
and your life was around that.
    I read from your testimony:

        In March 1996, my team had concluded that the Supreme Court was 
        a necessary part of our designated mission field. By then, I 
        was convinced that no matter how much pro-life Legislation or 
        Executive policy success we achieved, inevitably, any gains 
        would be frustrated, diminished, or nullified by the existence 
        of Roe v. Wade. As what has sometimes been called a ``super 
        precedent'' . . .

So, you go on to speak about your understanding of that.
    Take me from that point and what you just testified, that 
the evangelical movement got wrapped up into the Republican 
toolkit and became a tool of Republicans who did not want to 
find the balance, of wanting to use the sledgehammer approach, 
rather than a man of God. I think you were speaking from your 
heart.
    Reverend, would you please?
    Mr. Schenck. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee (sic).
    I'll take you to one very telling event, a meeting inside 
the U.S. Capitol with Republican Party operatives and a number 
of leading evangelical spokespersons, institutional leaders, 
ministry heads from across the country. In that meeting that I 
participated in, the conversation went something like this.

        You guys want Roe v. Wade overturned. We can do that for you. 
        But you take the whole enchilada, you take the whole thing, you 
        take everything else that comes with it. Because if you want 
        Roe gone, you have to work with us. So, you take it all.

    I was at the table, and I watched my colleagues nod, 
uncomfortably. From that point on, the community that I had 
served, and still do, made a deal with the devil. That deal was 
that we would support everything on the conservative agenda 
whether or not we had conscientious conflict with it. The means 
were justified by the end of that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It also meant that you had to approach the 
Supreme Court in a different way, that they had to be 
influenced?
    Mr. Schenck. Well, certainly we had to do everything we 
could to ensure that the Justices would be resolved to begin 
laying the groundwork for the reversal of Roe.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me quickly, because I want to get Ms. 
Fredrickson in. Who was in the room? What operatives were in 
the room? When I say that, you were in a room of what at that 
time?
    Mr. Schenck. These were leading evangelical influencers 
from across the country.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That might as well and the person speaking 
saying you had to do whatever they wanted was an influencer or 
a--
    Mr. Schenck. More of a party operative, somebody who knew 
how to get political objectives achieved.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm going to ask, Madam Professor 
Fredrickson, is there any insult to having an ethics protocol 
for the United States Supreme Court to its ability as a third 
branch of government?
    Ms. Fredrickson. No. I think it actually would be a 
celebration of the role that the Supreme Court plays in our 
system.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. May I ask unanimous consent to submit two 
documents into the record? This is during the confirmation 
hearings of Justice Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, 
where all of them committed to the acceptance of the precedent 
of Roe v. Wade, under oath. I ask unanimous consent to place 
this into the record.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]



      

                     MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Witnesses.
    Thank you for your courage, Professor. I want to call you 
professor. Reverend, thank you for your courage.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair will now recognize the 
gentlelady from Georgia, Representative McBath, for five 
minutes.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair.
    I want to thank the Witnesses today. Thank you so very much 
for patiently being here with us today and your testimony.
    I have to say, with all moral clarity today, for each and 
every individual in this room, let him who is without sin cast 
the first stone.
    Reverend Schenck, you and I have had the pleasure to meet 
almost 10 years ago, and long before I had ever even considered 
running for Congress.
    My son Jordan had just been murdered by a man with a gun 
who didn't like the loud music that he was playing in his car 
with his friends. When we met, most assuredly at that time you 
and I didn't necessarily agree on gun safety policy. You 
listened to a mother's story, you listened to my heart.
    Years later, you began to challenge your own ideas as you 
believe God had warranted you to do, as he was calling you to 
do. As his shepherd, you still continue to reflect on your 
moral and theological responsibility to God's people.
    Faith has helped guide you all your life, I do know this to 
be true, and the decision to come forward today, like many of 
the very difficult spiritual and moral decisions that God has 
called on you to make of most recent years, today could not 
have been an easy one for you at all.
    You have faced fierce negativity and scrutiny, and it has 
come at a great personal and financial cost.
    Someday everyone in this room will stand before God and 
account for the lives that we have lived. You and I, Reverend 
Schenck, have engaged in that conversation of faith and truth 
almost a decade ago. I have a few questions for you today.
    This is kind of a three-part question, so if you need me to 
reiterate anything, please feel free to do so.
    I'm interested to know what you took from our very first 
conversation. I'm also interested to know what role God and 
faith have had in your life's decisions.
    I'm also interested to know what this particular decision, 
the decision to come forward and speak the truth, means to you 
as a man of God and a minister to his people.
    Mr. Schenck. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, thank you for 
the role you have played close and from a distance in the 
pilgrimage I've been on these last several years.
    To begin with, I will tell you that there came a moment in 
a dusty seminary basement, comparing the story of the 
Evangelical church in Nazi Germany, which declared Adolf Hitler 
to be a gift and miracle sent by God to restore Germany to its 
greatness, that was an eye-opening and deeply disturbing 
experience for me because I realized how my spiritual family 
could be utterly politicized in the worst possible way 
imaginable. That was an eye-opening experience.
    Along the path I met you and I heard your story, and I 
realized that the ideology of my community that embraces 
unfettered Second Amendment rights became an idol. Ideology can 
quickly become a form of idolatry.
    Then came other experiences, including the memory of one in 
a Montgomery County jail when I was detained for supporting 
then Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama in his public display 
of the Ten Commandments, and hearing the shrieks of a woman in 
an odd co-ed wing, psychiatric wing of the jail, screaming for 
her children, begging for mercy for her three children, ``Where 
are they? Who will, who are caring for my children.'' I 
realized I had never heard the voice of that woman in 30 years 
of anti-abortion activism.
    That came back to me in a certain instance in time and 
shook the foundations of the ideology that had become idolatry 
for me.
    That brought me to a place of repentance, which I'm still 
working out. I consider myself a penitent pilgrim. At this time 
of my life, part of my penance is to tell the truth.
    I hid many secrets during my public life as an activist on 
the religious right. I don't want to hold those secrets any 
longer, and that's why I've come forward to tell the truth 
today.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you for your courage and your conviction.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Jones, for five minutes.
    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chair.
    During oral argument this week in a case called 303 
Creative, which threatens to undermine the rights of LGBTQ 
people in our economy to not be discriminated against, Justice 
Alito joked about Black children dressing up in KKK costumes.
    His remarks caused many Americans to question his mental 
fitness. Even before his antics this week, Americans had reason 
to question his integrity.
    On November 19, The New York Times published a bombshell 
report describing credible allegations that Justice Alito 
leaked both the outcome and the authorship of the Court's 2014 
opinion in Hobby Lobby to Gayle and Don Wright of Centerville, 
Ohio.
    The Wrights were far-right donors to the Supreme Court 
Historical Society who were actually secret operatives for a 
radical anti-abortion group called Faith and Action. The 
mission of the Wrights and other operatives trained by Faith 
and Action was to ingratiate themselves with those Justices who 
proved amenable--the Alitos, the Thomases, the Scalias--go 
figure--to influence Supreme Court decisions.
    The President of Faith and Action, who I'm grateful is 
testifying today--the former President--at the time called 
those operatives stealth missionaries.
    Their strategy worked. The Wrights became close friends of 
the Alitos and they dined in each other's homes. Sam and 
Martha-Ann Alito even vacationed with Gayle and Don Wright at 
their home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming--which sounds incredible, 
by the way. I've never gone skiing in Jackson Hole.
    In clear evidence that Hobby Lobby, the result specifically 
had been leaked and the author of it had been leaked, The New 
York Times described several contemporaneous emails and 
conversations from 2014 which confirmed that today's key 
Witness, Reverend Schenck, was indeed aware of the outcome of 
the Hobby Lobby opinion and the identity of its author.
    The only way he could've known this is if Justice Alito had 
indeed leaked this information to Gayle and Don Wright. That is 
common sense. Justice Alito's hypocrisy, as well as the 
hypocrisy of some of my colleagues on this Committee today, 
astounds me. It astounds me.
    That is because in October of this year, while speaking at 
an event commissioned by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, 
Justice Alito referred to the leak of his draft opinion in 
Dobbs as a, quote, ``great betrayal of trust.'' A great 
betrayal of trust.
    Will Justice Alito use these same words to describe his own 
leak of the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby? With this 
new information, why should any of us believe that he wasn't 
the person who leaked the Dobbs opinion? Again, more likely 
than not given the evidence that we have before us.
    Justice Alito went on to say that, quote, ``Someone crosses 
an important line when they say that the Court is acting in a 
way that is illegitimate,'' and that he did not think anyone in 
a position of authority, quote, ``should make that claim 
lightly.''
    Well, Justice Alito, your conduct as a member of the 
Supreme Court is directly responsible for the American public 
increasingly viewing the Supreme Court, unfortunately, as 
illegitimate. ``Keep up what you're doing, it's making a 
difference,'' Justice Thomas told Reverend Schenck.
    Reverend Schenck, thank you for your candor today. I know 
this has been very difficult. You wouldn't be the first Witness 
who my Republican colleagues have cast unfair aspersions on, 
but it's still shocking to hear some of the things that they're 
saying about you today and that they have said about you today 
because you were just their friend a few years ago, in their 
eyes.
    What do you think Justice Thomas meant when he said that 
it's making a difference, the work that you were doing?
    Mr. Schenck. The context of that, Congressman, was the work 
I had been doing introducing the individuals I referred to as 
stealth missionaries into the life of the Court.
    I saw Justice Thomas in the hallway of the Court, and he 
made a point to signal to me, and he said, ``Keep up your good 
work, it's making a difference.'' The context of that was what 
we had been doing at the Court for, at that stage, nearly 17 
years.
    Mr. Jones. Indeed that work is described in great detail in 
The New York Times reporting by Jodi Kantor and others.
    In the limited time I have left, I would just make the 
following observation. This Committee has requested, time and 
time again, a representative from the Supreme Court to opine, 
to provide testimony on a variety of questions bearing on the 
ethics and the need for ethics reform at the Court.
    In October 2021, the Chief Justice failed to send a 
representative to testify at our hearing on judicial ethics and 
transparency.
    In March of 2022, the Chief Justice failed to send a 
Witness for this Committee's hearing on workplace protections 
for judicial employees.
    Yet, again in April 2022, after other bombshell reporting 
regarding the violation of the recusal statute by Justice 
Thomas pertaining to his wife's far-right activism trying to 
overturn the Presidential election and his continued insistence 
on ruling in matters relating to January 6, the Supreme Court, 
and Chief Justice Roberts, in particular, failed to send a 
witness.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Jones. So, I would just conclude, Mr. Chair, by saying 
that this is on Justice Roberts to finally do something about 
the crisis of legitimacy at the Court. The buck stops with him.
    Thank you. I yield.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The Chair will now recognize the 
gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, for five minutes.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your 
interest and determination in this important issue.
    I thank our testifiers.
    Dr. Fredrickson, you mentioned something that cannot be 
said enough, that Supreme Court Justices are not elected. This 
is by design.

        The Judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the 
        purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of 
        society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may be 
        truly said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.

Of course, that's Hamilton, as has been noted earlier.
    We've seen today that money is moving toward the Supreme 
Court Justices. We've seen attacks on our civil rights coming 
from the courts, on our voting rights protections. This is the 
reason public confidence in SCOTUS is at an all-time low.
    So, Dr. Fredrickson, I believe this goes a long way in 
terms of the leaked opinion. For the average citizen, for my 
constituents, why should Americans care about the low approval 
rating of our highest court in the land? What is the impact on 
their daily lives?
    Ms. Fredrickson. Thank you so much. Thanks for the 
promotion too. I've never been called ``Dr. Fredrickson'' 
before. I like it.
    Ms. Dean. Forgive me. Forgive me.
    Ms. Fredrickson. No, it's great. It's great.
    Mr. Dean. Professor. From an old professor to another.
    Ms. Fredrickson. I have a J.D. but not a Ph.D.
    No, thank you very much for that question. I think I would 
just go back to, I think, what Alexander Hamilton was trying to 
suggest, and did suggest very forcefully in that, in Federalist 
78, was that the Court really depends for its strength.
    Its strength is purely moral. Its strength is purely where 
it stands in the confidence of the people. When that has been 
undermined, it becomes a real danger for the whole idea of 
checks and balances and separation of powers.
    The role of the Court is to ensure that we stay within the 
boundaries of the law, but the only way that they can enforce 
that is by respect for their rulings.
    I would also evoke James Madison, who Mr. Raskin mentioned, 
other author of the Federalist Papers, who talked about checks 
and balances and the importance and the fact that there are 
only parchment barriers in between the branches and that the 
way to actually really effectuate the checks and balances that 
are inherent in separation of powers is through the ability of 
each branch to oversee the others.
    That's why I think it is very critical that this Committee 
is undertaking this project. Again, I thank Mr. Johnson for 
this legislation.
    Ms. Dean. I do too.
    Reverend Schenck, in my time remaining, I'm a lawyer by 
training, and I remember learning in my early ethics class 
about judges avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. 
Stunning to me in my adult life to understand that the Supreme 
Court Justices don't seem to be accountable to that same 
important ethical standard.
    So, I'm outraged by the schema of wealthy donors cozying up 
to Supreme Court Justices to influence them. As my colleague 
just said, what a great betrayal of trust, in this case our 
trust.
    My question for you, Reverend, is while it's shocking to 
me, did any Justice raise his or her hand at one of these 
socials, or soirees, to say, ``This doesn't feel right, this is 
inappropriate access and attempt at influence''? Did any 
Justice say that?
    Mr. Schenck. Never in my hearing or presence, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Dean. Never. Never any of their staffers say, ``We're 
really worried about the appearance of this''?
    Mr. Schenck. No.
    Ms. Dean. Never. I would say that there's an awful lot on 
these Justices. We hold them in such high regard, or at least I 
always did in the past as a student of the law, I held them in 
such high regard, and how corrosive these last years have been.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I sincerely thank you for the mission 
you are on, of course, to bring ethical standards to our 
Supreme Court, and I am going to stand with you all the way.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady. The 
gentlelady yields back.
    At this time, I'd like to read several letters--well, I 
won't read them into the record, but I'll enter them into the 
record for today's hearing, from a number of groups, thanking 
this Committee for holding this hearing and endorsing an urgent 
floor vote on the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and 
Transparency Act.
    These letters are from Demand Justice and a coalition of 
over 80 national, State, and local organizations; also, Project 
on Government Oversight; NARAL Pro-Choice America; Interfaith 
Alliance; Alliance for Justice on behalf of 150 public interest 
and civil rights organizations; also, Senator Russ Feingold of 
the American Constitution Society; and last, but not least, Fix 
the Court.
    Without objection, these are entered into the record.
    [The information follows:]



      

                 MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chair, may I be recognized for a unanimous 
consent request as well?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman is so recognized.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to submit for 
the record several more articles.
    This is from Newsweek, ``The Baseless `Recusal' Attack on 
Clarence Thomas''; from Newsweek, ``40 Years of Attacks and 
Slurs Against Justice Thomas''; from the Washington Examiner, 
``The Media's War on Clarence and Ginni Thomas''; and from the 
Washington Examiner, ``The Ginned-Up Case Against the 
Thomases''; and one more from The Federalist, ``Politico 
Launches Attack on SCOTUS Justices' Working Spouses.''
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MR. BISHOP FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman is--or the gentlelady 
from Missouri, Representative Bush, is now recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. St. Louis and I thank the Chair for 
convening this crucial hearing.
    As I've listened to Reverend Schenck's testimony, I've been 
thinking about the people who aren't dining with Supreme Court 
Justices, who don't get to launch multimillion-dollar influence 
campaigns to strip away other people's freedoms, who don't have 
access to people in power, but who feel the pain of powerful 
decisions.
    I'm thinking about nurses in Missouri who have to comply 
with comprehensive and mandatory ethics standards, as I had to 
as a nurse in Missouri, who's daily decisionmaking impacts low-
income, marginalized communities.
    I'm thinking about Black and Brown women dealing with life-
threatening complications because a lawless, unaccountable 
Supreme Court gutted our fundamental right to reproductive 
healthcare.
    So, when we talk about the Supreme Court, we're talking 
about life-or-death issues, especially for Black families like 
those in St. Louis. We're talking about equity. We're talking 
about morality and justice.
    So, I want to ask, Professor Fredrickson, are you aware of 
any job, other than U.S. Supreme Court Justice, that has 
lifetime tenure and a six-figure salary with no binding Code of 
Ethics? You can just answer yes or no.
    Ms. Fredrickson. I am not aware, no.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Mr. Sherman, are you aware of any such job, yes or no?
    Mr. Sherman. I am not. I am not, no.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Professor Fredrickson, if Reverend Schenck's allegations 
about this anti-abortion influence campaign and Justice Alito 
leaking the Hobby Lobby decision are true, should Justice Alito 
have recused himself in reproductive rights cases like Dobbs?
    Ms. Fredrickson. I mean, I think we should really focus on 
the fact here that I want to keep this hearing as much as we 
can to the substance of this bill. I think we would've avoided 
any of these issues had the Committee's interests, and the 
interests of the Committee in the past when Republican leaders 
moved forward on such legislation, to actually have some ethics 
rules for the Court that would constrain their acceptance of 
gifts, their acceptance of travel, and we wouldn't actually be 
in this situation.
    Ms. Bush. Right. I agree with that. Should he--okay. Should 
he have recused himself, though, is the question. This will 
just be a yes or a no.
    Ms. Fredrickson. Yes.
    Ms. Bush. Okay. Thank you. I don't mean to cut you off, but 
I'm running low on time.
    Reverend Schenck, I want to turn to you. The Supreme Court 
is encouraged to self-police its own ethics. Do you believe 
this system is working? It can be a yes or no or you can go a 
little deeper.
    Mr. Schenck. Well, thank you, Representative Bush.
    I'm not an expert in that field. What I can tell you is 
that whatever the current regime, it was no impediment to the 
work that I was doing.
    Ms. Bush. Let me just say thank you to everyone for your 
testimony and thank you to Reverend Schenck for how you've 
opened-up yourself to and was vulnerable for this hearing.
    I urge every person in America to ask themselves, who do 
you know that has a lifetime six-figure salary job with no 
binding code of conduct? Why would we give these nine people 
that power?
    Supreme Court Justices are human beings just as fallible 
and corruptible as any other person and they deserve to be held 
to the same standards. We absolutely need to pass Congressman 
Johnson's bill before the end of this year.
    That is the bare minimum. Yes, we need to expose the 
corruption of right-wing, dark-money lobbying campaigns, like 
Operation Higher Court. What about the moral corruption of 
Justices themselves? How do we address credible allegations of 
sexual harassment and assault, credible, decades-long hostility 
to fundamental rights like voting and abortion, and a radical 
approach to the law that threatens to set us back decades and 
even centuries?
    We need to limit the power of the Justices by expanding the 
Court, instituting term limits, and stripping its ability to 
take away fundamental rights.
    Every day we do nothing about this rogue and dangerous 
institution is a day we are failing the people of St. Louis and 
people of this country.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Ohio, the Ranking Member and incoming 
Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jordan, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Paoletta, is it only conservative Justices who give 
lectures?
    Mr. Paoletta. You'd think so by this conversation. But no, 
of course. Justice Sotomayor goes to the American Constitution 
Society and--
    Mr. Jordan. Oh, the group right next to you?
    Mr. Paoletta. I think she was the head of it, right? But, 
yes. I support that, I think it's great. In fact, it's 
specifically permitted by the ethics code that they all want to 
apply to the Supreme Court. It actually, for lower court 
judges, the one that's on the books, says you can go to 
educational organizations.
    So, The Federalist Society is an educational organization. 
It's a great organization. The ACS is still--is also a 501. 
It's not an advocacy group.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, so some of the Justices are maybe not as 
conservative as the ones that are being talked about today.
    Mr. Jones. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Jordan. Would Justice--
    Mr. Jones. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Jordan. Who's asking?
    Mr. Jones. Over here, Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. It's our last five, and I want to yield here, 
so--
    Mr. Jones. Sure.
    Mr. Jordan. If we have some time, we will do it.
    Mr. Jones. Sure.
    Mr. Jordan. So, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did 
she give lectures, did she do speeches, did she go on trips? 
Did she do some of those things too?
    Mr. Paoletta. Yes. In fact, she actually spoke at the NOW 
Legal Defense Fund, which was an advocacy group that had 
probably hundreds, if not scores of briefs before the Supreme 
Court. There was a lecture named after her. She donated a 
signed VMI opinion, her opinion, for a fundraiser for NOW.
    Mr. Jordan. Really?
    Mr. Paoletta. Yes. When she was--and when she was--
    Mr. Jordan. NOW certainly wasn't a pro-life organization, 
right?
    Mr. Paoletta. No. Again, it wasn't a 501(c)(3).
    Mr. Jordan. Right.
    Mr. Paoletta. It was an advocacy group that was litigating 
before the Supreme Court.
    Mr. Jordan. Important distinction.
    Mr. Paoletta. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that. I think 
that's important for us all to know, for the Committee to know.
    I would yield my time to Mr. Bishop, and if there is 
anything left, we will yield to Mr. Jones.
    Mr. Bishop. All right. I thank the Ranking Member, soon to 
be Chair.
    Mr. Schenck, you said something, it was followed up by one 
of the other Members, and I want to explore it for a minute.
    So, you talked about this anecdote where Justice Thomas 
told you, ``Keep it up, you're doing--you're having an 
impact,'' or something like that. Is that correct?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. So, you were a member of the clergy, right, a 
pastor--
    Mr. Schenck. Correct.
    Mr. Bishop. --interacting.
    Do you believe that people in high office, including 
Supreme Court Justices, ought to have access to spiritual 
counsel?
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you believe that if someone comes, say, in 
the Halls of Congress and wants to pray, or comes to my office 
and wants to pray with me, that I should suspect that they're 
trying to insinuate themselves for some political objective?
    Mr. Schenck. No, but I think you should be discerning about 
it.
    Mr. Bishop. Yeah. Is there any reason to believe that the 
Justices are not discerning? In other words--let me withdraw 
the question and ask it this way.
    Mr. Schenck. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. If Justice Thomas says, you're having an 
impact, keep it up, wouldn't it be a fair interpretation of 
that statement to be, your prayers for us, your gathering with 
us to console us and offer prayer and praying for you, that 
those are having--they're enlivening the Court, they're 
bringing about a better atmosphere in which we can work and do 
our jobs, but it doesn't mean that you're influencing me in my 
decisionmaking?
    Mr. Schenck. That's a hopeful statement, Congressman.
    Mr. Bishop. So, you take it as hopeful. The way you think 
of your spiritual relationship, as a man of the cloth, 
interacting with these officials, is that you were trying to 
manipulate them. Is that what I understand?
    Mr. Schenck. There comes a time, Congressman, when politics 
begins to inform religion in a way, I think is corrupting to 
both. I witnessed--
    Mr. Bishop. I'm sure in some people's lives that's true, 
but I certainly hope it's not the case.
    Mr. Paoletta, is that a fair reading of what goes on?
    Mr. Paoletta. It's just--I don't believe a thing Mr. 
Schenck says. I don't even know if Justice Thomas said that. 
He's said something like that to students.
    One of the things that is lost here is that the Justices, 
and particularly Justice Thomas, meet with hundreds of students 
that come to the Supreme Court. He spends hours with them.
    If you remember the quote that Justice Sonia Sotomayor said 
about Justice Thomas is that he talks to all the employees in 
the Court, from the janitor to the Justices.
    Mr. Bishop. Absolutely.
    Mr. Paoletta. He knows about their families. He knows who 
is sick. He knows who is having a wedding.
    You know how that comes about? Because he spends time 
talking to them. He does that with students, and they're 
legendary.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Paoletta--
    Mr. Paoletta. Anyone up on the Court who actually knows the 
Justices knows he spends time with people a lot. So, these 
folks that--no, the other thing about Mr. Schenck, is, once 
you're a liar, it's tough to believe whatever you say. So, when 
he invents this thing that Mr. Jordan brought up about adding 
the word ``Reverend,'' okay, a flat-out lie.
    Mr. Schenck wrote that book and had a look back at that 
phrase, okay, and he deliberately entered it in, and there's no 
other way to interpret that, that he looked at that phrase, he 
added ``Reverend'' and then he added this bogus story about 
winking to his brother about hearing the word ``Reverend.''
    So, when he says that Justice Thomas says that, I don't 
even believe it.
    Mr. Bishop. To be sure. I don't know which is more 
despicable, though, lying here or engaging in that sort of 
interaction with people on the pretense of being a pastor.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman's time has expired.
    This concludes today's hearing. We thank all the Witnesses 
for your participation.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses 
or additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]



      

                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]