... at the federal level, and in most judicial codes of conduct around the various states.
I suppose it matters how they're arranged. This was what got Abe Fortas in trouble when Johnson nominated him for Chief Justice in 1968.
Then, Fortas had taught a constitutional law class during the previous summer when the court was not in session. The class expenses were paid for out of a fund created by some of his friends. So, in effect, his salary (which was moderately large for a summer class at the time) for teaching the class was paid for by friends. The Republicans had an absolute field day with that in his hearings. Today, many judicial ethicists say teaching fees are okay, and are to be encouraged--if the judge is actually teaching, and not using "teaching" as an end-run around the honoria ban.
Here's an interesting article from the Star-Tribune in Minnesota, that looked into disclosure forms for some on federal courts. In it, it's quite clear that honoraria are not allowed under:
Honoraria were banned for federal officials by the Federal Ethics Reform Act of 1989. For senior legislative and executive branch officials, that meant turning down speaking fees except for those earned from teaching multiple classes at an accredited academic institution. But a few judges, including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, still receive fees for giving a speech and answering questions from students in one day.
At Baylor University in 1992, Scalia addressed a symposium on church and state relations. He arrived at the university the night before the address, met briefly with law students the morning of the speech and collected a $2,000 "teaching fee" from the sponsor, Baylor's J.M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies.
Last year, Scalia accepted $20,500 in teaching fees. He declined to comment on his teaching.
<snip>
"It looks too convenient," said New York University Prof. Stephen Gillers. "Is this really teaching? When Congress banned honoraria but not teaching income, I doubt it expected that a single speech could qualify as teaching simply because it was delivered to law students."
<snip>
Justice Thomas reported accepting reimbursements for speaking engagements to private groups that generally had a conservative orientation: The Jesse Helms Center, the Acton Foundation and the New Coalition for Economic and Social Change. Thomas' close association with conservative causes has been controversial since he joined the court.
http://www.startribune.com/stonline/html/westpub/disclose.htmSo, apparently, the ban on honoraria has been regularly evaded by scheduling speaking engagements as "teaching sessions." Guess if you're a judge, there's lots you can ignore on those disclosure forms....
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
