U.S. lawmakers called for an enforceable code of ethics for justices on the nation’s highest court Tuesday, saying recent concerns have once again highlighted that the U.S. Supreme Court is the one branch of the U.S. government that lacks those standards.

“The court should have a code of conduct with clear and enforceable rules so both justices and the American people know when conduct crosses the line. The current highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards,” Senator Dick Durbin, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday.

Unlike the executive and legislative branches and every other federal bench, the Supreme Court does not have a written ethics code. Justices are required to follow some ethics requirements as laid out in federal statutes.

Lawmakers are asking for those new guidelines following an investigation last month by journalism nonprofit ProPublica showing Justice Clarence Thomas has accompanied billionaire and conservative donor Harlan Crow on luxury vacations for the last two decades.

Thomas also faces concerns about conflicts of interest due to his wife’s involvement in attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. He has served on the court since 1991 when he was narrowly confirmed after public accusations of sexual harassment.

In an April 7, 2023, statement, Thomas explained why he did not report his gifts from Crow, whom he described as a close personal friend.

“Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable,” Thomas said.

The ethics concerns arise with public trust in the nation’s highest court at an all-time low. According to an October 2022 Gallup poll, only 40% of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing, and 58% say they disapprove — the highest number since that poll started in 1972.

But Senate Republicans pointed to ethics concerns about liberal-leaning Supreme Court justices and said this is just the latest attack from Democrats who are unhappy about a conservative majority on the court.

“This assault on Justice Thomas is well beyond ethics,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said Tuesday. “It is about trying to delegitimize a conservative court that was appointed through the traditional process.”

Republicans said they were concerned by previous inflammatory remarks made by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer suggesting justices should fear the consequences of their decisions. Republicans have also suggested that justices should receive increased security in light of threats to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s children and a suspected assassination attempt against three conservative justices.

“Every five minutes, the Democratic Party wants to give lectures about upholding our institutions and protecting democracy,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “But just as often, they find a way to undertake some new reckless attack against the courts and the rule of law. I’m proud of how our nation’s highest court has weathered these latest baseless attempts to attack its authority.”

Multiple pieces of legislation have been introduced in the U.S. Senate that if passed would institute a code of conduct governing justices. Independent Senator Angus King and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski would hold the Supreme Court to the same standards as other federal judges. Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse also introduced legislation that would require justices to submit to the same ethics standards as members of Congress.

“The Supreme Court has the lowest ethical standards in government,” Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, told senators on Tuesday.

“The Supreme Court does not have an internal ethics enforcement body,” Payne said. “Justices rely on ethics advice from random and anonymous sources instead of in-house ethics experts. This leads to incorrect and inconsistent interpretations of the law. Also, investigations of misconduct are extremely rare.”

Durbin invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about those concerns and possible solutions. Roberts declined, citing the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution and the need to preserve judicial independence.
…

The Biden administration will send 1,500 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border ahead of an expected migrant surge following the end of coronavirus pandemic-era restrictions, Pentagon press secretary Brigadier General Pat Ryder said in a statement Tuesday. 

Military personnel will do data entry, warehouse support and other administrative tasks so that U.S. Customs and Border Protection can focus on fieldwork, the officials said. The troops will not do law enforcement work and will be there for roughly 90 days, though their presence can be extended if necessary.  

The COVID-19 restrictions allowed U.S. officials to turn away tens of thousands of migrants crossing the southern border, but those restrictions will lift May 11, and border officials are bracing for an expected surge of migrants. Even amid the restrictions, the administration has seen record numbers of people crossing the border, and President Joe Biden has responded by cracking down on those who cross illegally and by creating new pathways meant to offer alternatives to a dangerous and often deadly journey. 

Biden’s actions follow similar moves by then-President Donald Trump, who deployed active-duty troops to the border to assist border patrol personnel in processing large migrant caravans, on top of National Guard forces that were working in that capacity. There are roughly 2,700 National Guard members at the border. 

The Pentagon on Tuesday approved the request for troops by the Department of Homeland Security, which manages the border, one of the officials said. 

But the deployments have a catch: As a condition for Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s previous approval of National Guard troops to support the border mission throughout fiscal 2023, which ends October 1, DHS had to agree to work with the White House and Congress “to develop a plan and implement solutions to staffing and funding shortfalls to maintain border security and the safe, orderly, and humane processing of migrants that do not involve the continued use of DOD personnel and resources after FY2023,” said Pentagon spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Devin Robinson. 

As part of the agreement, DOD requested quarterly updates from DHS on how it would staff its border mission without service members throughout this fiscal year; it was not immediately clear if those updates have happened or if DHS will be able to meet its terms of the agreement — particularly under the strain of another migrant surge. 

For Biden, who announced his Democratic reelection campaign a week ago, the decision signals his administration is taking seriously an effort to tamp down the number of illegal crossings, a potent source of Republican attacks, and sends a message to potential border crossers not to attempt the journey. But it also draws potentially unwelcome comparisons to Biden’s Republican predecessor, whose policies Biden frequently criticized. Congress, meanwhile, has refused to take any substantial immigration-related actions. 

It’s another line of defense in an effort to manage overcrowding and other possible issues that might arise as border officials move away from the COVID-19 restrictions. Last week, administration officials announced they would work to swiftly screen migrants seeking asylum at the border, quickly deport those deemed as not being qualified, and penalize people who cross illegally into the U.S. or illegally through another country on their way to the U.S. border. 

They will also open centers outside the United States for people fleeing violence and poverty to apply to fly in legally and settle in the United States, Spain or Canada. The first processing centers will open in Guatemala and Colombia, with others expected to follow. 
…

The search for a gunman in Texas who killed five neighbors from Honduras dragged into a third day Monday with false alarms and few apparent leads, while Republican Gov. Greg Abbott faced backlash over drawing attention to the victims’ immigration status.

An FBI agent on the scene near Houston acknowledged they have little to go on in the widening manhunt for 38-year-old Francisco Oropeza, who has been deported four times since 2009, but who neighbors say lived on their street for years prior to Friday night’s shooting in the rural town of Cleveland.

Twice on Monday, a sheriff’s office in a neighboring county alerted the public about possible sightings, but neither turned up Oropeza.

Abbott offered a $50,000 reward over the weekend for any tips that might lead to the gunman, and while doing so, the three-term governor described all the victims as “illegal immigrants” — a potentially false statement that his office walked back and apologized for Monday. Critics accused Abbott, who has made hardline immigration measures a signature issue in Texas, of putting politics into the shooting.

“We’ve since learned that at least one of the victims may have been in the United States legally,” Abbott spokesperson Renae Eze said in a statement. “We regret if the information was incorrect and detracted from the important goal of finding and arresting the criminal.”

Eze said information provided by federal officials after the shooting had indicated that the suspect and victims were in the country illegally. Her statement did not address why Abbott mentioned their status and she did not immediately respond to questions about the criticism.

More than 250 law enforcement officers from multiple agencies, including the U.S. Marshals, are now part of a growing search that has come up empty despite additional manpower, scent-tracking dogs, drones and a total of $80,000 in reward money on the table. On Monday, a heavy presence of police converged in Montgomery County after a possible sighting, but the sheriff’s office later said none of the persons were found to be Oropeza.

A few hours later, the department reported another possible sighting, tweeting that several schools had “secured their campuses” and again asked residents to avoid the area. But that search, too, turned up nothing.

Both were among the first times since the shooting that authorities had announced a possible sighting.

“I can tell you right now, we have zero leads,” James Smith, the FBI special agent in charge, said Sunday.

The FBI in Houston said in a tweet on Sunday that it was referring to the suspect as Oropesa, not Oropeza, to “better reflect his identity in law enforcement systems.” His family lists their name as Oropeza on a sign outside their yard, as well as in public records.

Oropeza is considered armed and dangerous after fleeing the area Friday night, likely on foot. San Jacinto County Sheriff Greg Capers said authorities had widened the search area beyond the scene of the shooting, which occurred after the suspect’s neighbors asked him to stop firing off rounds in his yard late at night because a baby was trying to sleep.

At a Sunday vigil in Cleveland, Wilson Garcia, the father of the 1-month-old, described the terrifying efforts inside his home by friends and family that night to escape, hide and shield themselves and children after Oropeza walked up to the home and began firing, killing his wife first at the front door.

Police recovered the AR-15-style rifle that they said Oropeza used in the shootings. Authorities were not sure if Oropeza was carrying another weapon after others were found in his home.

The alleged shooter is a Mexican national who has been deported four times, according to a U.S. official with direct knowledge of the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because public disclosure was not authorized.

The official said the gunman was first deported in March 2009 and last in July 2016. He was also deported in September 2009 and January 2012.

Law enforcement on the scene have not confirmed the citizenship status of the victims. By describing them as “illegal immigrants” on Sunday in his first public statement about the shooting — and perhaps incorrectly — Abbott came under criticism from immigrant rights groups and Democrats.

“It is indefensible to any right-hearted Texan to use divisive language to smear innocent victims,” said Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

The victims were identified as Diana Velazquez Alvarado, 21; Julisa Molina Rivera, 31; Jose Jonathan Casarez, 18; Sonia Argentina Guzman, 25; and Daniel Enrique Laso, 9.

Capers said he hoped the reward money would motivate people to provide information and that there were plans to put up billboards in Spanish to spread the word.

Veronica Pineda, who lives across the street from the suspect’s home, said authorities had stopped by her house over the weekend to ask if they could search her property to see if the gunman might be hiding there. She said she was fearful that the gunman had not yet been captured.

 
…

The union that represents U.S. film and television writers sent their members on strike Tuesday after failing to reach an agreement with studios and production companies over a new labor contract. 

The Writers Guild of America announced late Monday that their 11,500 members would put down their pens and turn off their computers at midnight Los Angeles time ((Tuesday 3:00 a.m. Washington time, 0700 GMT)) when their current contract expires.  

The union has been negotiating with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers for increased pay and stronger employment guarantees on episodic television shows as more and more scripted series are being shown on Internet-based or “streaming” platforms.   

In a statement announcing the strike, the WGA said major studios such as Walt Disney and Netflix have “created a gig economy inside a union workforce,” a reference to the growing trend of people taking on freelance jobs as opposed to permanent, full-time work.  

Streaming television platforms have transformed the entertainment industry in recent years, offering more opportunities for writers but for lesser pay on shows that run fewer episodes per season than traditional broadcast networks.  

Artificial intelligence is another issue for WGA members. The union wants to prevent studios from using AI to create scripts based on writers’ previous work. It also doesn’t want writers to be asked to work on scripts generated by AI. 

SEE ALSO: A related video by VOA’s Mike O’Sullivan

The AMPTP issued a statement saying it was prepared to offer higher pay and better royalty payments for writers for streaming shows, but that it was “unwilling to do so because of the magnitude of other proposals still on the table.” The alliance says a major point of contention is a union proposal for a show to maintain a certain number of staff writers “whether needed or not.” 

The strike is the first by the WGA in 15 years. The last walkout began in late 2007 and stretched 100 days into the next year, costing the California economy an estimated $2.1 billion. Late night talk and variety shows such as “The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon” and “Saturday Night Live” will go off the air immediately as their writing staffs are members of the WGA.  

Some information for this report came from The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse.  
…

U.S. President Joe Biden assured his Philippine counterpart Monday of the the United States’ commitment to the Southeast Asian archipelago as tensions rise with China.

“The United States also remains ironclad in our commitment to the defense of the Philippines, including in the South China Sea, and we will continue to support the Philippines military modernization goals,” Biden said.

The two leaders signed a new defense cooperation agreement Monday to strengthen Philippine security and support military modernization.

That agreement builds on the conclusion last week of the largest-ever war drills between the two nations as well as an agreement earlier this year in which the Philippines agreed to give the U.S. access to four more bases on the islands.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., known in his country as “Bongbong,” is the son of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. On Monday, he said the archipelago nation has had a front-row seat to increased tensions in the South China Sea.

“There are also the issues, geopolitical issues that have made the region where the Philippines is possibly, arguably the most complicated geopolitical situation in — in the world right now,” Marcos said. “And so it is only natural that — for the Philippines to look to its sole treaty partner in the world to strengthen and to redefine the relationship that we have and the roles that we play in the face of those rising tensions that we see now around the South China Sea and Asia Pacific and Indo-Pacific regions.”

China has repeatedly harassed Philippine navy and coast guard patrols and disagrees with Manila’s approach.

“The key to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region lies in the fact that regional countries adhere to mutual trust, unity and cooperation and firmly hold the lifeline of their security in their own hands,” Wang Wenbin, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, said last month at a ministry briefing. “We once again remind the relevant regional country that blindly catering to nonregional forces will not only fail to safeguard their own security but will exacerbate tensions, endanger regional peace and stability, and will inevitably harm themselves in the end.”

Analysts say this reflects a shift in the relationship.

“It’s been a dramatic turnaround over the last eight months, a real quick pace of deepening and institutionalizing the defense relationship,” said Brian Harding, who studies Southeast Asia at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Southeast Asia experts say this is not an either-or situation for the Philippines. Beijing recently sent its foreign minister to Manila to meet with his counterpart, indicating a strong partnership.

“I think the Philippines and this President Marcos is probably navigating those dual strategic or national interests: security on one side, perhaps with the United States, trade and investment on the other side,” Marc Mealy, senior vice president for policy at the US-ASEAN Business Council, told VOA on Monday. “China is the number one trade partner for all of the countries in Southeast Asia, including the Philippines.”

In a joint statement, the leaders of the U.S. and Philippines leaders also said they would work together as allies on such efforts as promoting “inclusive and broad-based prosperity,” investing in “the clean energy transition,” fighting climate change, upholding international peace and stability, and ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law.

The leaders’ joint statement did not mention that Marcos was visiting the U.S. under diplomatic immunity, despite a 2012 U.S. contempt order against him over his father’s estate, which was to be used to pay damages to human rights victims of martial law under the senior Marcos’ rule.

Prior to Marcos’ visit, a group, identifying its makeup as “concerned Filipinos and US Citizens,” released late last month an open letter to the White House that raised issues over what they described as “inconvenient realities stashed in Mr. Marcos’ political baggage,” such as his moves to silence critics and his approach to human rights.

“His official visit to the United States is as good a time as any to remind the U.S. public that his rise to the presidency is the fruit of at least three decades of his family’s efforts to recast his father’s dictatorship as ‘a golden age’ for Filipinos,” the group said, raising his father’s record of imprisoning political opponents and torturing dissidents.

“We understand that in advancing the United States’ diplomatic agenda President Biden must deal with his official counterpart in the Philippines as a matter of course,” read the letter, signed by leaders of seven organizations. “Nonetheless, we hope that America’s ‘ironclad commitment to the defense of the Philippines’ will not devolve into an uncritical engagement with the Marcos administration.”

Nike Ching contributed to this report. 
…

The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether to jettison a decades-old decision that has been a frequent target of conservatives and, if overruled, could make it harder to sustain governmental regulations.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal that takes aim at a 1984 case known as Chevron. The case involves the Chevron oil company, and the ruling says that when laws aren’t crystal clear, federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details. That’s what agencies currently do — on environmental regulations, workplace standards, consumer protections and immigration law.

The court’s conservative majority already has been reining in federal regulators, including in last June’s decision limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

But Chevron has been one of the most frequently cited high-court cases, and a decision limiting its reach or overturning it altogether could dramatically limit the discretion of federal officials to make regulations affecting a wide range of American life.

At least four conservative members of the court — Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — have questioned the doctrine. Gorsuch, as an appeals court judge, noted that court decisions “permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.”

It takes four of the court’s nine members to agree to hear a case, but the court, as is its custom, did not reveal the vote breakdown.

One wrinkle in the current case is that only eight justices will participate. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not taking part, presumably because she was on a panel of appellate judges that heard arguments in the case when it was at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The court will not hear the case before the fall. Last week, the justices finished hearing arguments for the term that is expected to wrap up in June. They will spend the next two months issuing opinions before taking a summer break.

The specific case the court agreed to hear is part of a long-running fight between commercial fishing groups and the federal government over who pays for data collection and regulatory compliance. It stems from a lawsuit by a group of fishermen who want to stop the federal government from making them pay for the regulatory work.

The fishermen involved in the lawsuit harvest Atlantic herring, which is a major fishery off the East Coast that supplies both food and bait. Lead plaintiff Loper Bright Enterprises of New Jersey and other fishing groups have said federal rules unfairly require them to pay hundreds of dollars per day to contractors who inspect the fisheries. Lower courts have ruled against them.

The case is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 22-451.
…