When Scalia Died: New Documents Capture Confusing Day
Part of the problem surrounding Justice Antonin Scalia's death, the documents reveal, was that he chose not to have federal protection while at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, the hunting resort where he died in February 2016.
March 14, 2018 at 01:46 PM
4 minute read
Justice Antonin Scalia, 1936-2016.
Newly disclosed documents from the U.S. Marshals Service appear to show confusion and a lack of coordination after the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in West Texas in February 2016.
“It was a weekend morning, and in a remote part of Texas, and it took several hours for the right people to be notified,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, who sought and sued for the documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
By statute and according to policy directives included in the released documents, the Marshals Service is tasked with protecting justices during domestic travel outside the Washington area “when requested.”
Part of the problem surrounding Scalia's death, the documents reveal, was that Scalia chose not to have federal protection while at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, the hunting resort where he died.
Scalia only requested help from the marshal's service while changing planes in Houston from a Southwest Airlines flight to a private charter plane, where he joined six other unnamed people for the flight to the ranch, according to the documents.
The 380 pages of documents, many of them heavily redacted, fill in some details of Scalia's trip to Texas, which came just a few days after returning from a trip to Hong Kong and Singapore.
In a Feb. 9 email, an unnamed person at the court said “originally, we did not think he would need anything from the marshals” for the Texas trip. But the email went on to ask for protection during Scalia's flight transfer and layover in Houston. The email added, “He will be traveling with a gun.”
The documents also include a detailed timeline of the Saturday morning when Scalia was found dead in his room at 11 a.m. at the ranch by a housekeeper. Soon after, an unnamed person tried to reach federal authorities, “with no response.” Apparently, that first message said someone in Scalia's party had died, not Scalia himself.
At 12:41 p.m., the local sheriff notified the nearest marshal's service office, and word began to spread within federal law enforcement agencies, including the Supreme Court police. At 2:38 p.m., the first of many officers from the marshal's service arrived at the ranch. At 10 p.m., they took inventory of Scalia's effects in the room and ultimately put them in a marshal's service safe.
One email exchange seems to reflect concern that the Marshals Service would get in trouble for not being with Scalia at the ranch.
A Feb. 14 Washington Post article circulated to officials included a statement from the service stating that Scalia had declined protection and that deputy U.S. marshals from West Texas “responded immediately upon notification of Justice Scalia's passing.” One official of the service said the statement was “relatively good,” adding “Let's hope it doesn't grow legs.”
“The public should be confident that Supreme Court justices are well-protected, both inside their building and when they venture out into the world,” Roth said. “That the justices can decline protection when they travel to the most far-flung places in the country does not seem appropriate, given the expansive reach and resources of the U.S. Marshals Service, and the fact that so many justices choose to remain on the bench well into old age.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllShaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
5 minute readAm Law 100 Partners on Trump’s Short List to Replace Gensler as SEC Chair
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250