The Wall Street Journal editorial board defended Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito against ProPublica and denounced the outlet's reporting as an "attempt at Court-thinning."
"The attack on the Supreme Court Justice on ethics and recusal is an attempt at Court-thinning," the editors wrote. "As usual, this is a non-scandal built on partisan spin intended to harm the Justice and the current Court majority."
Alito preempted ProPublica's story in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday and wrote that the report was "misleading."
ProPublica reported that the Supreme Court Justice went on a fishing trip in 2008 with billionaire Paul Singer and didn't disclose it.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ALITO SAYS HE HAS A ‘PRETTY GOOD IDEA’ ON WHO LEAKED THE DOBBS DECISION
"Regarding ethics, the story flatly asserts that Justice Alito violated disclosure rules, but he did not. At the time of the trip, the Justices were authoritatively advised that such 'personal hospitality' wasn’t reportable," the Wall Street Journal editors said.
The WSJ said Alito's fishing trip was not a "scoop" as the justice told a group of lawyers and journalists about it at a Federalist Society event in 2009.
"ProPublica’s focus on recusal is the latest angle in the progressive campaign to cripple the Court’s new majority. By imposing even tenuous associations as grounds for recusal, litigants can exclude certain Justices from hearing a case. With a Court of only nine Justices, this could determine the outcome. Call it Court-thinning rather than Court-packing, but the effect would be similar," they continued.
Alito argued in his WSJ op-ed that recusal "would not have been required or appropriate."
LEFT-WING NONPROFIT LEADS CHARGE AGAINST JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: ‘POLITICAL DRIVE-BY SHOOTING’
He described his relationship with Singer as having spoken to him "no more than a handful of occasions" which mostly "consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups" (with the exception of a "fishing trip 15 years ago") that avoided conversation about his businesses as well as any pending court cases. He also acknowledged the "two occasions" he was introduced by Singer at speaking engagements and the time he invited the justice to fill an "unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska."
The Journal also responded to backlash from the media for running Alito's op-ed.
"Justice Alito clearly wanted his defense to receive public disclosure in full, not edited piecemeal. We saw ProPublica’s list of 18 questions and had a good idea of where the reporters were going. The story proved us right," the editorial board wrote. "It is also hilarious to be denounced for betraying the media brotherhood for the offense of scooping the competition. This is the same crowd that would prefer if we didn’t exist. Their pearl-clutching reveals the degree of media conformity when it comes to approved progressive political targets like Justice Alito."
"That’s the larger story to keep in mind as the campaign against the Court accelerates. This isn’t about ethics. This is about the left’s fury at having lost control of the Court, which they had counted on for decades as a second legislature to impose their priorities when they couldn’t persuade Congress. They can’t accept that loss, and they will destroy the Court if they must to get that control back," the editors continued.
ProPublica previously accused Justice Clarence Thomas of having similar conflicts of interest.
ProPublica reported Thomas’ close friendship with real estate developer Harlan Crow allowed him to accompany the Texas billionaire on luxury vacations on his private jet and yacht, as well as free stays on Crow’s vast vacation property.
They also reported that he failed to disclose several of Crow’s gifts.
Fox News' Joesph Wulfsohn and Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.
