Featured Image
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown JacksonPhoto by Butch Dill - Pool/Getty Images

This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

(WND News Center) — An investigation is being sought into Joe Biden’s Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Jackson, for refusing to report her husband’s income for multiple years while she was a judge and required to do so.

report at Fox News explains the ethics complaint was filed by the Center for Renewing America with the Judicial Conference.

It charges that Jackson “willfully” concealed required income disclosures … for years.

In a letter, the center charged Jackson refused to report her husband’s income for more than a decade as a judge, and suggests the conference should refer Jackson to Attorney General Merrick Garland “for investigation and possible civil enforcement,” the report said.

At issue is a requirement that judges disclose income “by a spouse from any person which exceed $1,000.”

READ: Could the Supreme Court overturn the FDA’s legally dubious abortion pill approval?

There is an exception if the spouse is “self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession needs to be reported.”

Jackson, when nominated to the district court bench in Washington, revealed the names of two legal medical malpractice consulting clients who paid her husband, Patrick Jackson, more than $1,000 for the year 2011, according to the letter.

But in later filings, she “repeatedly failed to disclose that her husband received income from medical malpractice consulting fees,” the letter charges.

“We know this by Justice Jackson’s own admission in her amended disclosure form for 2020, filed when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, that ‘some of my previously filed reports inadvertently omitted’ her husband’s income from ‘consulting on medical malpractice cases,’” the center charges.

Further, she hasn’t even “attempted” to list the years that omitted the required information.

The letter points out the income doesn’t qualify for the “self-employment” exception.

The letter argues Jackson was aware of the legal requirements in 2012 “enough to list the specific sources of income for her first disclosure filing,” but later on, she wouldn’t do that.

That makes her violation “willful.”

It also questions the “private funding” that paid for a massive event at the Library of Congress that included multiple performing groups when Biden appointed her.

It’s unclear who paid for the festivities.

Reprinted with permission from the WND News Center.