Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius by Steven Lubet
Steven Lubet, a professor at Northwestern University Law School, lectured at Valparaiso University Law School as part of the annual Tabor Institute on Legal Ethics lecture series. Professor Lubet is the Director of the Bartlit Center on Trial Advocacy and teaches courses in Legal Ethics, Trial Advocacy and Narrative Structures. He has authored fifteen books and more than 100 articles in various areas including legal ethics, judicial ethics, legal history, international criminal law, dispute resolution and legal education.
Professor Lubet delivered a paper entitled “Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius.” He pointed out that Justices of the Supreme Court, unlike all other judges in the United States, are not subject to a comprehensive code of conduct. He discussed Chief Justice Roberts’ memorandum on the topic of recusals and criticized each of the Chief Justice justifications of the Court’s current practice, which allows the Justices to decide for themselves whether or not recusal is appropriate.
Recommended Citation
Valparaiso University School of Law, "Tabor Lecture 2012" (2012). Tabor Institute on Legal Ethics. 1.
https://scholar.valpo.edu/tile/1
Comments
Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius by Steven Lubet
Steven Lubet, a professor at Northwestern University Law School, lectured at Valparaiso University Law School as part of the annual Tabor Institute on Legal Ethics lecture series. Professor Lubet is the Director of the Bartlit Center on Trial Advocacy and teaches courses in Legal Ethics, Trial Advocacy and Narrative Structures. He has authored fifteen books and more than 100 articles in various areas including legal ethics, judicial ethics, legal history, international criminal law, dispute resolution and legal education.
Professor Lubet delivered a paper entitled “Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius.” He pointed out that Justices of the Supreme Court, unlike all other judges in the United States, are not subject to a comprehensive code of conduct. He discussed Chief Justice Roberts’ memorandum on the topic of recusals and criticized each of the Chief Justice justifications of the Court’s current practice, which allows the Justices to decide for themselves whether or not recusal is appropriate.