Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took the unusual step late Tuesday of responding to questions on his journey with a billionaire who often has circumstances earlier than the Supreme Court hours earlier than an article detailing their ties had even been printed.

In a rare salvo in a well-liked discussion board, Justice Alito defended himself in a pre-emptive article within the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal earlier than the news group ProPublica posted its account of a luxurious fishing journey in 2008.

His response comes because the justices face mounting scrutiny over their moral obligations to report items and to recuse themselves from circumstances involving their benefactors. The newest revelations are positive to accentuate requires the courtroom to undertake extra stringent ethics guidelines.

The justices have taken differing approaches to explaining their actions and making an attempt to guard their establishment. Justice Clarence Thomas has been largely silent within the face of revelations of gifts from Harlan Crow, a rich Republican donor. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. turned down an invite from Congress to testify in regards to the courtroom’s ethics practices and made obscure statements about addressing them.

And Justice Alito has come out swinging.

The ProPublica article centered on a visit Justice Alito took to a distant a part of Alaska, arriving on the personal jet of Paul Singer, an immensely rich hedge fund supervisor and Republican donor. The flight would have value greater than $100,000 a method if the justice had chartered it himself, the outlet estimated, and his annual disclosures make no point out of the journey, in what many consultants in authorized ethics mentioned was a violation of federal regulation. In the years afterward, Mr. Singer’s companies have been events to various Supreme Court circumstances during which Justice Alito participated.

ProPublica had sought remark from the justice, who as an alternative turned to The Journal to make two details: that he was not required to recuse himself from these circumstances or to reveal the journey.

Justice Alito mentioned he had spoken to Mr. Singer solely a handful of instances, together with on two events when Mr. Singer launched the justice earlier than speeches. “It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially,” Justice Alito wrote.

He added that he didn’t know of Mr. Singer’s connection to the circumstances earlier than the courtroom, together with one during which the courtroom issued a 7-to-1 decision in favor of certainly one of Mr. Singer’s companies, with Justice Alito within the majority.

But Mr. Singer’s connection to the case, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, was broadly reported. A Forbes article overlaying the choice bore the headline “Supreme Court Hands Billionaire Paul Singer a Victory Over Argentina.” An article in The New York Times famous that the events to the case included “NML Capital, an affiliate of Elliott Management, the hedge fund founded by Paul Singer.”

Justice Alito mentioned he was not required to reveal the journey on Mr. Singer’s personal jet in “a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant.”

A federal regulation requires disclosures of items over a sure worth however makes exceptions for “personal hospitality of any individual” at “the personal residence of that individual or his family or on property or facilities owned by that individual or his family.” Justice Alito wrote {that a} jet is such a facility, quoting from dictionary definitions.

In March, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking physique for the federal courts, issued new guidelines requiring disclosure of journey by personal jet and stays in industrial properties like resorts.

After ProPublica disclosed that Justice Thomas had taken a collection of lavish holidays paid for by Mr. Crow, together with prolonged stays on Mr. Crow’s yacht, the justice mentioned he would adjust to the revised guidelines. Justice Thomas justified accepting the journeys due to what he mentioned was his shut friendship with Mr. Crow.

In his essay, Justice Alito disputed the notion that the fishing journey was notably fancy and ProPublica’s account of extravagant meals topped with costly bottles of wine. “I stayed for three nights in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge, which was a comfortable but rustic facility,” he wrote. “As I recall, the meals were home-style fare. I cannot recall whether the group at the lodge, about 20 people, was served wine, but if there was wine it was certainly not wine that costs $1,000.”

Among those that helped arrange the journey, based on ProPublica, was Leonard Leo, a longtime chief of the Federalist Society, the conservative authorized group, who was additionally in attendance. In a statement to ProPublica, Mr. Leo wrote that justices throughout the ideological spectrum had obtained hospitality from pals and supporters and that their judicial work had been unaffected.

“We all should wonder whether this recent rash of ProPublica stories questioning the integrity of only conservative Supreme Court justices is bait for reeling in more dark money from woke billionaires who want to damage this Supreme Court and remake it into one that will disregard the law by rubber stamping their disordered and highly unpopular cultural preferences,” Mr. Leo mentioned.

Justice Alito seems to have a very good relationship with The Journal’s opinion pages, which printed a wide-ranging interview with him in April.

He mentioned on the time that he was upset that legal professionals had not come to the protection of the courtroom, which was dealing with mounting scrutiny for what critics say are serious ethical lapses.

“This type of concerted attack on the court and on individual justices” is, he mentioned, “new during my lifetime.”

He added: “The idea has always been that judges are not supposed to respond to criticisms, but if the courts are being unfairly attacked, the organized bar will come to their defense.”

Instead, Justice Alito mentioned, “if anything, they’ve participated to some degree in these attacks.”

A number of days earlier than Politico printed a leaked draft of Justice Alito’s majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade final 12 months, an editorial in The Journal offered hints about tensions on the courtroom that seemed to be based mostly on inside data.

The creator of the bulk opinion was not but publicly identified. “Our guess,” the editorial mentioned, accurately, was that it might be Justice Alito.

Recent revelations have introduced into sharp focus how few disclosure necessities are in place and the way the justices are sometimes left to police themselves.

Gabe Roth, govt director of Fix the Court, an advocacy group that seeks extra openness on the Supreme Court, mentioned it was in want of an ethics overhaul. “The public should expect Supreme Court justices of all people to be ethical exemplars,” he mentioned, “yet the nine have consistently been shown to be deficient in this regard.”

Last month, the chief justice said the courtroom aimed to handle the matter at the same time as he prompt that Congress was unable to behave below the Constitution’s separation of powers.

“I want to assure people that I am committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct,” he mentioned. “We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment.”