Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from several copyright cases related to Penguin Random House despite receiving more than $3 million for her books with the publisher, according to financial disclosures.

From 2017 to at least 2021, the high court appointee of former President Barack Obama received annual payments from Random House that amounted to more than $500,000. Altogether, she received $3.6 million from the publishers or its subsidiaries, according to a Daily Wire report.

HARLAN CROW PAID TUITION FOR CHILD CLARENCE THOMAS WAS RAISING LIKE A 'SON': REPORT

Ben Margot

While receiving payments, Sotomayor did not recuse herself from cases with the publisher on several occasions.

Meanwhile, other justices with Random House book deals recused themselves from cases where Sotomayor did not. For example, she voted on whether or not the high court should take up the case Aaron Greenspan v. Random House even though then-Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself due to receiving payment from the publisher.

In 2020, the high court chose not to hear a separate case regarding the publisher. Breyer recused himself while Sotomayor did not, though it's not clear whether she voted in the decision.

Revelations of disclosure lapses by Sotomayor come as Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns about Justice Clarence Thomas apparently failing to adhere to ethical guidelines after it was revealed he accepted expensive travel gifts from a wealthy Republican donor, Harlan Crow.

The investigative outlet ProPublica has released three reports on Thomas detailing his relationship with Crow. The first report detailed his years of travels to exotic locations, then revealed a real estate deal that was previously not disclosed. Another report came out on May 4, revealing Crow paid the private school tuition of Thomas's grandnephew.

Case Western University Law Professor Cassandra Burke Robertson told the Washington Examiner that the additional reports of disclosure lapses by a liberal justice, coupled with the existing lapses from conservative members, may help push ethical concerns on the judiciary toward more bipartisan efforts.

"I think there's room for argument about what exactly is required, both for disclosure and for potential recusal. But I think the kind of broader issue is that it's a conversation that needs to happen," Robertson said.

Fix The Court, a nonpartisan Supreme Court watchdog that compiled some of the disclosures used in the report, also noted that Sotomayor failed to disclose six trips in 2016 funded by third-party groups before she later corrected the disclosures.

FTC founder Gabe Roth has often criticized conservative justices for apparent disclosure lapses but said on May 1 the media may have overreacted to some stories about the justices this month, including Justice Neil Gorsuch selling a joint-owned property under an LLC and the earnings of Chief Justice John Roberts' wife as a legal recruiter, saying it was "much ado about nothing."

The justices do consult rules such as the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, though legal experts have pointed out that certain requirements surrounding recusals are more difficult for high court justices because there are no replacement justices in the event of a conflict of interest.

During a Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court ethics this week, lawmakers were divided on how a new code of conduct should be applied and enforced, with Democrats more in favor of congressional powers and Republicans partial to allowing the justices to govern themselves.

University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck tweeted Thursday that Congress has "historically exerted influence over" the Supreme Court.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But Robertson said if the court does take on a new code of ethics separate from the lower courts, she thinks "any sort of enforcement" would need to come from the court itself.

"I think constitutionally, it cannot come from Congress or from lower courts," Robertson said.