The Politico story makes much of Mr. Barrett’s continuing to practice law after moving to Washington when his wife joined the Supreme Court. But by sticking with his Indiana-based firm, SouthBank Legal, Mr. Barrett hasn’t raised any appearance issues. SouthBank Legal doesn’t have a Supreme Court practice and has never represented clients before the court.

Neither Politico nor the press generally raised such concerns over Marty Ginsburg, who moved to Washington and joined the Fried Frank law firm when his wife, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was appointed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1980. He practiced at the firm until he retired in 2009. There was no hue and cry over Judge and later Justice Ginsburg not providing a list of Fried Frank’s many clients to allay public concerns over a potential conflict. A review of Justice Ginsburg’s financial disclosures from 2005 to 2009 confirms that she never disclosed Marty Ginsburg’s clients and didn’t even list Fried Frank in the disclosure form’s section on spouse’s noninvestment income. Instead she listed her husband’s income as coming from Martin Ginsburg P.C.

The press gave scant coverage to the many instances in which Fried Frank filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the Supreme Court. One of Mr. Ginsburg’s Fried Frank colleagues also represented KSR International as a party before the high court, with Justice Ginsburg voting in favor of her husband’s firm’s client. The press likewise wasn’t interested in the business relationship between Mr. Ginsburg, Ross Perot and Mr. Perot’s company, EDS, even though Perot endowed a chair named after Marty Ginsburg at Georgetown University Law Center. Perot helped wrangle political support at Mr. Ginsburg’s request for Ms. Ginsburg’s confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, and Perot was a party to at least two cases in which petitions were filed with the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg didn’t recuse herself from these cases.

None of this is mentioned in the Politico piece.