Liberal groups and politicians have spent years targeting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, but now Chief Justice John Roberts has his own controversy brewing. 

According to the Washington Examiner, Roberts' wife, Jane Roberts, has reportedly received staggering amounts of money from law firms for recruitment work. However, at least one of those firms has argued in front of the high court.

A former colleague of hers, now a whistleblower, argued that because she's married to the most powerful judge in the nation, payments from such firms should receive the highest scrutiny.

Reportedly, Jane Roberts raked in over $10 million for her recruitment work for the firms.

Whistleblower speaks

Kendal B. Price, the whistleblower who once worked with Jane Roberts at a recruiting firm, indicated that she was uneasy at the time as far as saying anything about her recruiting practices with top law firms.

"When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong," Price said.

She added: "I was discouraged from ever raising the issue."

The Examiner noted:

A comprehensive internal spreadsheet compiled by the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa shows that Jane Roberts's "attributed revenue" amounted to $13,309,433 between 2007 and 2014. Her share of that revenue, described by the spreadsheet as payments for "commissions," adds up to $10,323,842.70, according to documents obtained by Insider.

It was also noted that it's unclear if any specific lawyers she recruited ever argued before the Supreme Court, being careful to say that it was only at least one of the firms in general.

The report also noted that the Chief Justice's wife's "access to people is heavily influenced by her last name."

High praise

While Price believes that there were issues surrounding the use of her name as it related to her work with the firms, others who worked alongside Jane Roberts claimed that she never used her name for those purposes, and ensured she kept her family life private.

Mark Jungers was one of her former colleagues, and said, "Jane was always very sensitive to the privacy of her family, and when she could drop the name or make certain calls, she didn't."

Others, including Jonathan Entin, an administrative law professor at Case Western Reserve University, indicated that the situation was more of a optics issue for the chief justice, and not so much an ethical one.

Only time will tell what comes of the complaint, but with the way Democrats are using their power to go after conservative justices, nothing should be surprising at this point.