SCOTUS SCANDAL EXPLODES!
SCOTUS SCANDAL EXPLODES: Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly HID $20 MILLION+ in his wife’s commissions from Big Law firms that argue before SCOTUS, then refused to recuse in over 500 cases!
THIS COULD EXPLODE TO BE A HUGE DEAL!
The core facts stem from legitimate 2023 reporting on ethics concerns, but the “$20 MILLION+” figure, “HID,” and blanket “refused to recuse in over 500 cases” framing come from more recent activist allegations that stretch the verified details.
The Income Facts
Jane Roberts (née Sullivan) worked as a legal recruiter (headhunter) at Major, Lindsey & Africa (2007–2014) and later Macrae. Internal firm documents (from a whistleblower complaint by former colleague Kendal Price) show she generated $10.3 million in commissions (her share of ~$13.3M attributed revenue) over those 8 years by placing high-level lawyers with elite firms.
Some of those firms (or their clients) later had business before the Supreme Court. At least one firm that paid her commissions had a case argued before the Court afterward.
Chief Justice Roberts’ annual financial disclosures listed her income source (the recruiting firm) and described it as “salary“ rather than commissions. The forms require reporting spousal non-investment income sources exceeding $1,000 but do not require specific amounts or breaking out commissions vs. salary. Critics (including Price and ethics watchdogs) call this “misleading” because commissions are performance-based and tied to specific placements.
The “$20 MILLION+” claim extrapolates the 2007–2014 figure across ~16 years (including later work at Macrae) and assumes continued high earnings. This appears primarily in a recent Substack post by Christopher Armitage (who is filing a DC bar complaint against Roberts). It’s an estimate/allegation, not a fully documented total like the $10.3M.
Disclosures and “Hiding”
Roberts did disclose his wife’s employer and the nature of her work (attorney search consultant) on required forms. He amended some filings (e.g., noting an equity interest in her firm for certain years).
No public evidence shows outright falsification that violates the letter of the Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) requirements for justices. However, the commission-vs.-salary distinction and lack of client details have fueled criticism that it obscures potential conflicts. Supreme Court justices follow EIGA disclosures (like other federal judges) but are not bound by the stricter lower-court code in the same enforced way. A 2009 judicial advisory opinion supported that a judge need not recuse solely because a spouse recruits for firms appearing before the court.
Recusals and the “500 Cases”
Law firms that paid commissions to Jane Roberts (or employed her placements) did argue hundreds of cases before the Supreme Court during Roberts’ tenure. The “over 500” figure tallies all such arguments across many years.
Roberts did not recuse himself from those cases. Per the advisory opinion cited by the Court, this is generally not required unless there’s a direct financial interest in the specific case outcome. Jane Roberts was not a party or lawyer in the cases, and her commissions were for placements, not tied directly to litigation results.
This is a real ethics debate—many experts and reformers argue it creates an appearance of impropriety, especially amid broader SCOTUS scrutiny (e.g., other justices’ undisclosed gifts). Defenders note it’s consistent with existing rules and that her work predates or is independent of specific cases.
Context and Broader Picture
This issue surfaced prominently in 2023 amid calls for a binding SCOTUS ethics code (which the Court later adopted voluntarily, without strong enforcement). Similar concerns have hit other justices’ spouses (e.g., income or activities). No formal finding of violation or sanction against Roberts has resulted from this. Activist complaints (like Armitage’s) push for disbarment or investigation, but these are one-sided and unproven at this stage.
Bottom line: Jane Roberts earned substantial commissions (~$10M+ documented in one period) from firms with SCOTUS business, and disclosures were technically compliant but minimal. Roberts didn’t recuse in related cases, consistent with guidance but raising legitimate appearance concerns for critics.
Have been concerned about Roberts, for some years. Have seen pic of him with Ghislaine Maxwell. Name on flight log, was that Roberts. And Rob ruled on Obamacare. Wonder if he was blackmaled, and made to rule wrongly on this. So, not super surprised, but have been concerned...
This is a time that God is Exposing people & wrong doing!!
And the issue of adoption, for he & Barrett, I have heard of too.
Also read about time he spent with Boazberg, in another country. So, gave been concerned for some time!!
My guess is that he will come to no real harm as a result of this. However, for many folks like myself who have been on the fence about Justice Roberts character, I believe we now have our answer.
No pun intended but in a “just” world I find myself hoping this little nugget will be stored in the memory banks of America so that when the real shoe drops (and I believe it will) Justice Roberts will go down in the flames that he deserves.