John Roberts’ absurd double standard: He’ll embrace checks and balances for Trump, but not for his own court.

Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts sent a one-page letter declining Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin’s invitation to testify today about Supreme Court ethics. Indeed, three years ago, Roberts wrote the court’s 7–2 majority opinion in Trump v. Mazars, the landmark case testing Congress’ power to compel production of President Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records. Roberts explained that congressional requests for a president’s personal information must be “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress,” and warned that courts must perform “careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake.” But “congressional power to obtain information,” he recognized, is “broad,” “indispensable,” and necessary for Congress to “legislate wisely or effectively.” This power, Roberts continued, encompasses inquiries into “existing laws, studies of proposed laws,” and “surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them.” That is precisely the situation here. There is no real question about whether what Thomas did was a violation—Thomas’ failure to disclose these extravagant gifts, specifically the private jet travel—violated the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which exempts from mandatory disclosure only “food, lodging, or entertainment,” but not transportation, “received as personal hospitality.” Forced to respond to the firestorm, Thomas claimed he’d “sought advice” from his colleagues, who opined “that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable.” But ever since ProPublica’s report, a steady drumbeat of new revelations has decimated those defenses—Crow did have business before the court in at least two cases, after all—and provided additional evidence that Thomas has acted illegally and unethically.