Fix the Court, a group focused on transparency at the U.S. Supreme Court, recently faced scrutiny over an omission on its website. The organization initially failed to include Justice Sonia Sotomayor's international engagements in Austria and Switzerland until a media inquiry brought attention to the matter.
The group's omission has led to allegations of political bias and inconsistencies in its oversight of Supreme Court justices, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The watchdog group, known for demanding more transparency from the highest court in the United States, did not list Justice Sotomayor's trips to Vienna, Austria, and Zurich, Switzerland, under its section tracking events involving the justices. In July, Sotomayor participated in discussions with Austrian Minister of Justice Alma Zadić and engaged in a panel conversation at the University of Zurich.
Critics have raised concerns about the oversight, accusing Fix the Court of being lenient toward Democratic-appointed justices while maintaining a stricter stance on their Republican counterparts. The missing entries were updated only after an inquiry from the Examiner prompted a response from Gabe Roth, who leads the organization.
Roth acknowledged the lapse, stating, "Thanks for the tip -- will be sure to add!" He described the justices as "prolific travelers" and emphasized that the group is committed to updating its records when new information emerges. However, the delay in listing these events has drawn significant attention.
Fix the Court is connected to the Arabella Advisors network, a Democratic Party-aligned funding organization, which has further fueled accusations of partisanship. Mark Paoletta, a legal commentator, accused Roth's organization of being "partisan hacks funded by left-wing billionaires."
Conservative voices, including Paoletta and Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino, have been outspoken about the watchdog’s selective approach to transparency. Severino noted that while there are no issues with Justice Sotomayor traveling abroad, the real concern lies in the apparent inconsistency in how Fix the Court monitors justices.
“What is suspect, however, is how Fix the Court follows every move the Republican-appointed justices make but somehow misses this major international trip,” Severino stated. Her comments have been echoed by others who view the group’s actions as reflective of a broader political bias.
The omission has sparked debate about the role of watchdog organizations like Fix the Court, which aim to hold the judiciary accountable. For some, this recent incident has raised questions about the integrity of the organization’s efforts and its commitment to impartiality.
Fix the Court has faced challenges beyond this recent omission. Last year, Roth inadvertently exposed donor information while discussing the organization's funding difficulties. He admitted to errors in handling the group's finances, highlighting the precarious nature of its funding.
During the donor leak incident, Roth candidly admitted to his struggles, remarking, “I’m not a good fundraiser” and describing himself as a “klutz” in managing the group's financial disclosures.
He expressed concerns that the mishap could jeopardize the organization’s future, potentially affecting its relationships with key donors.
These revelations have contributed to ongoing discussions about the transparency and accountability of organizations like Fix the Court. The incident has also underscored the delicate balance between watchdog groups' roles and their adherence to the standards for which they advocate.
