It Wasn’t Long Ago When CJ Loretta Rush Lied Under Oath On Her Financial Dealings Disclosures

A known liar Runs Indiana‘s legal system go figure!

Indiana’s Supreme Court Should Open Its Financial Books

Hoosier Enquirer | Editorial | October 21, 2026

INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana’s Supreme Court expects lawyers and judges to meet demanding ethical standards. Its justices should lead by making their own financial interests easier to examine, more detailed and more promptly disclosed. Public confidence requires enough information to test assurances of impartiality.

Indiana already requires annual statements of economic interests.

The official form calls for disclosure of outside employment, certain businesses and board positions, stock holdings above $10,000, and reportable gifts and outside compensation. It covers specified interests of spouses and minor children as well. The filing deadline is February 1 for the preceding calendar year. [1]

But the form’s investment section asks for the business’s name and whether the holding belongs to the judge, spouse or children; it does not ask for the holding’s value. A $15,000 investment and a $1.5 million investment can therefore produce the same entry. HE believes the public deserves value ranges that reveal the scale of those financial ties. [1]

The issue has practical examples. The Indiana Lawyer reported in February that Chief Justice Loretta Rush disclosed Eli Lilly and Honeywell stock for 2025; Justice Geoffrey Slaughter reported more than $4,000 in conference reimbursements from the Federalist Society and Liberty Fund; and Justice Mark Massa reported $10,000 for participation in Indianapolis Indians board meetings. These are reported financial relationships, not findings of misconduct. They demonstrate why accessible, specific disclosures matter. [2]

Access itself has drawn criticism. In March 2025, Indiana Lawyer editor Greg Weaver reported that obtaining disclosures for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals took more than three weeks. He also reported that Rush said the administrative office was open to considering online publication. That historical account deserves a concrete response: an official, searchable archive with a firm publication deadline and visible amendments. [3]

Other courts offer useful examples. Illinois revised its judicial economic-interest disclosure system with its ethics code effective in January 2023, expressly seeking greater assurance that judges would avoid cases involving significant financial interests of themselves or close relatives. The federal judiciary provides free online access to releasable annual and periodic transaction reports, including amendments, filed from 2022 onward. Indiana should adopt the strongest useful features of those systems. [4][5]

Travel reporting needs scrutiny, too. Indiana Rule 3.15 generally requires reporting of covered gifts and reimbursements exceeding $150 from the same source in a calendar year, but that rule must be read alongside other requirements and exceptions. The official form separately asks about certain gifts exceeding $100 under the statutory reporting system. These overlapping provisions should be explained clearly to the public. [1][6]

More consequentially, commentary to Rule 3.14 exempts expenses paid by governments, colleges, universities and numerous named judicial and bar organizations from its reimbursement-reporting requirement. HE believes that exemption is too broad. A university or professional association can have interests relevant to judicial business; its institutional status alone should not place sponsored travel beyond routine public disclosure. [7]

Indiana’s recusal rule already requires disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including specified financial conflicts. It also requires judges to keep informed about their own economic interests and make reasonable efforts concerning those of a spouse or domestic partner and minor children at home. A public disclosure threshold does not determine whether an interest requires recusal. Better disclosure would help litigants identify questions before a ruling arrives. [8]

HE calls for publication of every justice’s annual filing and amendments in one searchable archive; investment value ranges and clearer business ownership information; timely reports of significant securities transactions and sponsored travel; and public explanations of financial recusals or decisions denying recusal. A credible compliance review should identify late or incomplete filings and publish how deficiencies were resolved.

Account numbers, home addresses and sensitive identifying information can be protected while financial relationships remain visible. Chief Justice Rush and her colleagues should publish what they can now and support rule and statutory changes where needed. The court’s authority is substantial. Its willingness to submit to meaningful financial scrutiny should match it.

Sources

1. Indiana judicial Statement of Economic Interests: https://www.in.gov/courts/ojar/files/jud-qual-sei.pdf

2. The Indiana Lawyer, February 17, 2026: https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/pacers-tickets-teaching-fees-whats-in-the-indiana-supreme-court-justices-annual-economic-disclosures

3. The Indiana Lawyer, March 26, 2025: https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/weaver-we-will-make-judge-disclosure-forms-more-accessible

4. Illinois Supreme Court ethics reforms: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1114/Illinois-Supreme-Court-adopts-new-Code-of-Judicial-Conduct/news-detail/

5. Federal judiciary disclosure database information: https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-financial-disclosure-reports

6. Indiana Rule 3.15: https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/judicial-conduct/rule3-15/current.htm

7. Indiana Rule 3.14: https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/judicial-conduct/rule3-14/current.htm

8. Indiana Rule 2.11: https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/judicial-conduct/rule2-11/current.htm