The nonpartisan organization Fix the Court, known for tracking Supreme Court justices' public engagements, recently came under scrutiny for omitting two international events attended by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

A report by the Washington Examiner revealed that Fix the Court, often critical of conservative justices for lack of transparency, initially left out Sotomayor’s travel to Austria and Switzerland.

According to records reviewed by the Washington Examiner, Sotomayor, a Democratic-appointed justice, visited Vienna in July, where she met with Austrian Minister of Justice Alma Zadić and a group of students.

She also participated in a panel discussion at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, joined by a local professor and journalist. Notably, former U.S. Ambassador Suzan G. LeVine, also briefly President Joe Biden’s assistant secretary for employment and training, provided introductions at the event in Zurich.

Fix the Court’s Response to Omission

Fix the Court’s leader, Gabe Roth, promptly acknowledged the oversight when contacted by the Washington Examiner, thanking them for the "tip" and confirming that the justice’s trips would be added to the organization’s public calendar of Supreme Court events. Roth mentioned that justices are “prolific travelers,” and the group is “always happy to update the page when we learn of a new trip or event.”

Despite Roth’s swift response, some conservative figures, including attorney Mark Paoletta, criticized the omission as part of a broader pattern. Paoletta, an ally of Justice Clarence Thomas and former general counsel for the Office of Management and Budget under the Trump administration, accused Fix the Court of maintaining a selective focus. He alleged the group frequently scrutinizes Republican-appointed justices, such as Thomas and Samuel Alito while neglecting to monitor Democratic appointees with similar intensity.

Accusations of Political Bias in Monitoring Practices

The Supreme Court-focused watchdog is one of several organizations connected to the influential Democratic funding network, Arabella Advisors, and it has faced criticism for what some describe as politically motivated omissions.

In addition to accusations of bias, Roth’s group has also been noted for financial disclosure issues, with Fix the Court facing a lapse last year when it failed to report lobbying activities. Roth later apologized for this on a podcast and updated the watchdog’s financial records accordingly.

Paoletta pointed out that the Fix the Court watchdog has previously dismissed other potentially controversial actions by left-leaning justices, such as late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s acceptance of a $1 million prize from a foundation associated with left-leaning causes. He argued that Fix the Court’s alleged inconsistencies in tracking travel and finances suggest a partisan approach to its transparency mandate.

Carrie Severino, head of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network and a former clerk to Justice Thomas, also weighed in, highlighting that while justices have the right to travel and engage in educational or diplomatic events, transparency organizations like Fix the Court should apply consistent standards. Severino observed that it was “sloppy” to overlook Sotomayor’s trips and suggested that the group’s affiliations might influence its actions.

Severino stated:

Of course, there is no judicial ethics issue with Justice Sotomayor traveling to Austria and Switzerland. What is suspect, however, is how Fix the Court follows every move the Republican-appointed justices make but somehow misses this major international trip. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, though, given the organization’s history of connections to the Arabella Advisors network.

Fix the Court’s Ties to Democratic Networks

Since its founding in 2014, Fix the Court has voiced strong critiques against the Supreme Court, accusing it of “disdain for openness and transparency.”

The group has campaigned for reforms like term limits for justices and has argued that all members of the Court, regardless of political leanings, should be transparent in their dealings. However, the organization’s close ties to Arabella Advisors, a Democratic-aligned network, have prompted concerns among conservative voices about its objectivity.

Roth himself has spoken candidly about his challenges in managing Fix the Court’s finances. Last year, he inadvertently leaked donor information to the Washington Examiner, a mistake he said could jeopardize the organization’s future. Roth commented that he struggles with fundraising and financial oversight, leading to inadvertent mistakes that impact the organization.

"I’m not a good CPA. I’m a klutz. Schedule B is not something that is sent out, right? It’s not made public,” Roth admitted, expressing regret over the misstep and fearing it might have “cost” him his job.

Conservative Calls for Transparency in Watchdog Groups

The revelations surrounding Fix the Court’s omitted travel records have sparked broader discussions about transparency requirements for watchdog organizations themselves. Republican leaders and conservative commentators argue that groups demanding transparency should be transparent in their operations and funding sources, ensuring they maintain nonpartisan practices.

Mark Paoletta reiterated that while watchdog groups play an essential role in holding public figures accountable, they should adhere to the same ethical standards they expect from the justices they monitor.

This episode adds to ongoing debates over judicial transparency and the role of outside influence on both the judiciary and the organizations claiming to provide accountability. Critics allege that groups connected to powerful partisan networks, such as Fix the Court, may selectively target certain justices to advance broader political objectives, potentially undermining public trust in the judiciary and in transparency advocates.

Questions Arise Over Watchdog's Selective Focus

Ultimately, the incident underscores ongoing tensions regarding judicial oversight, with Fix the Court’s recent actions sparking calls for fairer and more consistent scrutiny of justices across the ideological spectrum. While Fix the Court has since corrected its records to reflect Justice Sotomayor’s July travels, some remain skeptical about the group’s impartiality. As watchdog organizations continue to scrutinize the judiciary, the public and political commentators alike are left questioning whether these groups hold all justices to equal standards.