People Power United joins coalition efforts in letter to invite Chief Justice Roberts to Testify Before Senate Judiciary on Trump Immunity Ruling

🗽The power of the people is stronger than the people in power!

People Power United joined other local, state, and national organizations to invite Chief Justice Roberts to Testify Before Senate Judiciary on Trump Immunity Ruling. Shout out to Court Accountability for leading these efforts. Here is the letter sent on behalf of our members:

September 23, 2024 

The Honorable Dick Durbin Chair Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chair Durbin, 

We write to urge you to invite Chief Justice John Roberts to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on how the Supreme Court mismanaged the Trump v. United States case, leading to the decision granting broad immunity to former President Donald Trump for criminal actions taken during his time in office. We commend you for holding a hearing this week on this dangerous ruling, which undermines the rule of law and places presidents above accountability, threatening the very foundation of our democracy. In light of the reporting by The New York Times on Chief Justice Roberts’s central role in shepherding—and prejudging—the Court’s decision,¹ we believe that the Chief Justice’s testimony is crucial to understanding key procedural and ethical concerns about the Court’s operations and is necessary to inform legislation to bring needed reform to the Court. 

Legal observers across the political and ideological spectrum have condemned the outcome and reasoning of Trump v. United States. The process by which the ruling came about, however, is perhaps equally troubling. Because of delays engendered by the Court’s majority, President Trump will almost certainly avoid trial for his election interference crimes until after Election Day, and potentially forever. Additionally, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas each failed to recuse themselves from consideration of the case despite federal law plainly requiring their recusal—Justice Alito for flying flags expressing support for President Trump’s election interference and Justice Thomas for his wife’s role in leading the election interference movement.² 

1 _{Jodi Kantor & Adam Liptak, How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak, The New} York Times (Sept. 15, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/15/us/justice-roberts-trump-supreme-court.html. 2 _{See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself} in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” or where “[h]e or his spouse . . . [i]s known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”) 

As the New York Times reporting indicated, Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly “deploy[ed] his authority to steer rulings that benefited Mr. Trump,” and he is best placed to testify about his use of that authority. Although the Chief Justice apparently drafted a memorandum in February that pre-judged the case, the Court did not hear arguments until the end of April and did not issue its opinion until July 1, leading to a multi-month delay of the trial that accrued only to President Trump’s benefit. The Times reporting makes clear that the Court’s decisions on that timing were driven by politics from the outset. 

Furthermore, by all appearances, Chief Justice Roberts was aware of Justice Alito flying an upside-down flag—a symbol of the January 6 insurrection—outside his house soon after it occurred.³ It was only when the flag story was reported publicly, however, that the Chief Justice took from Justice Alito the assignment for writing the majority opinion in Fischer v. United States, a case involving the prosecution of January 6 insurrectionists, an implicit but insufficient recognition that Justice Alito should be disqualified from hearing the case. 

The Chief Justice’s testimony will be valuable for the Committee’s consideration of potential legislation regarding the Supreme Court’s operations, including S. 359, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023, S.4167, the Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024, and future legislation implementing reforms to the Supreme Court’s docket management procedures. His testimony will also inform the Committee’s consideration of S.4973, the No Kings Act, which would neutralize the Trump v. United States decision and streamline future cases involving assertions of presidential immunity. 

Of course, Chief Justice Roberts may again argue that separation of powers principles make his appearance before Congress inappropriate. We encourage you not to bend to his baseless and self-serving claims of immunity from congressional oversight, which are just as destructive to constitutional checks-and-balances principles as Trump v. United States. As Chief Justice Roberts has acknowledged: “Without information, Congress would be shooting in the dark, unable to legislate wisely or effectively,” and so the “congressional power to obtain information is broad and indispensable.”⁴ And Supreme Court operations and processes are clearly “a subject on which legislation could be had,”⁵ spanning from the Judiciary Act of 1789 to the present. 

Thank you again for holding this important hearing. It is a critical first step for Congress to engage in its proper and constitutionally obligated oversight role, and we are accordingly hopeful that you will invite Chief Justice Roberts to testify to continue to uncover his role in this disastrous decision. 

3 _{See, e.g., Kantor & Liptak, supra note 1 (“Word of the flag filtered back to the court, people who worked} there said in interviews.”) Additionally, The Washington Post published a story in May 2024 acknowledging that a reporter had documented the flag-flying incident in January 2021 but the paper had decided not to cover the story at the time. Justin Jouvenal & Ann E. Marimow, Wife of Justice Alito called upside-down flag ‘signal of distress’, The Washington Post (May 17, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/25/alito-flag-martha-ann-washington-post/. The Post story indicates that Justice Alito issued a statement to the paper at the time in response to the reporter’s questions about the flag. That inquiry would very likely have gone through the Supreme Court's Public Information Office, which is overseen by Chief Justice Roberts. 4 _{Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020) (internal quotations omitted).} 5 _{Id. (quoting Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 506 (1975)).} 

Sincerely, 

Court Accountability Action

True North Research Action

Together NEPA 

All* Above All

Blue Future 

Center for Popular Democracy Action

Chop Wood, Carry Water 

Clean Elections Texas Common Cause 

Democrats Abroad Demand Justice 

Democratic Messaging Project

Democrats.com 

End Citizens United Action Fund

Enough of Gun Violence 

Equality California Fourth Branch Action 

Free Speech for People

Freedom Writers Collaborative 

Get Money Out – Maryland

Indivisible Marin 

The Media and Democracy Project

Oregonizers 

Our Revolution

People Power United 

People’s Parity Project

Public Wise 

Revolving Door Project

Rural Urban Bridge Initiative 

Secure Elections Network

Stand Up America 

Take Back the Court Action Fund

Voices for Progress 

Wellbeing Economy Alliance California 

CC: The Honorable Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary