Report rates Ohio Supreme Court as ‘poor’ when it comes to gift disclosures

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – A recent report claims the Ohio Supreme Court has room for improvement when it comes to being transparent about the gifts its justices receive.

The nonprofit Fix The Courts believes it is vital that the public understands what “financial interests and other entanglements” that state Supreme Court justices may have, to ensure biases do not influence their rulings, according to a publication by its executive director Gabe Roth. 

That’s why the organization released a report in July, rating the financial disclosures of state supreme courts – which often include information about gifts justices have received – based on how accessible they were and the amount of “useful content for oversight” they contained. 

Specifically, the analysis completed its ranking according to the financial disclosures of each court’s chief justice in 2023 and 2024, which mark the most recent available forms. The report placed each state in one of four categories, including, from best to worst: passable, average, poor and failing. The Ohio Supreme Court received a “poor” grade. 

“Chief Justice (Sharon) Kennedy is a prolific receiver of gifts, having received gifts valued at more than $75 from (mostly) the same half dozen couples for years,” the report said. “Unfortunately, the report requires neither a description of the gifts (just the source) nor a dollar amount, so the lavishness and propriety of the gifts remains in question.”

The nonprofit gave each state a score, allowing up to 10 points based on how quickly state supreme courts answered financial disclosure requests, and another 20 points based on how much information was included in the form. An additional two points were available if state supreme court justices were required to disclose more information than federal judges. 

Ohio received a score of 20, falling from its “average” grade of 24 in a similar report from last year, due to a slower response time. The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, a regulatory branch of the supreme court, took 1.5 hours last year to send the disclosures after a records request, compared with 3.7 business days this year, according to the reports.

NBC4 reached out to the Ohio Supreme Court to ask for comment on the report and to find out what gifts Kennedy received. Andy Ellinger, the court’s director of public information, said it “does not comment on third-party ratings or methodologies.” He did not address what gifts Kennedy received. 

Ellinger did, however, say that the Ohio Supreme Court has been required to be in full compliance with rules and laws governing financial disclosures since 1973. This includes an Ohio law that requires justices to fill out financial disclosure forms, including the reporting of all gifts valued at more than $75, unless from a family member. 

Ohio could improve its judicial disclosures by posting them online, as is done in 24 states, Roth said. He also suggested justices be required to add their spouses' source of income to the disclosures, as they may have a partner who is an attorney. Finally, he stated the reports should include more details about gifts and their price tag. 

“Judges should be required not only to list who gave them gifts over $75 but also to describe what the gift was and its value, as there's a clear difference between being gifted, say, a $75 vase and a $7,500 vacation, and the public should have more information here,” Roth said. 

Federal law generally requires U.S. Supreme Court justices report gifts and their value for presents that cost more than $480. The rule applies to gifts from sources other than relatives, with exceptions for personal hospitality like food, lodging or entertainment at a private residence.

The requirements for financial disclosures vary across states. Idaho and Utah, which both earned a score of 0 and tied for last place, have no annual disclosure requirement for their judges and justices. In six states, financial disclosures do not have a section for reporting gifts, according to the report. 

While many states post their disclosures online, Missouri requires requesters to show up in person, Tennessee requires requesters to be state residents, and Maine requires requesters to pay a fee. 

The states that are the most transparent with their justices' financial disclosures were California and Colorado, which both earned a score of 29 and have the forms readily available online. 

Fix The Courts' full report and methodology can be found here.