The unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month created a political firestorm. President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats want to name a replacement for the staunch conservative, while Republicans who control the House and Senate want to delay, hoping a Republican will occupy the White House in 2017.

In the days following Scalia’s death, news reports focused on his devotion to the Constitution and his view that court decisions should be based on what the authors of the founding documents intended at the time.

Other news stories focused on Scalia’s sometimes biting dissenting opinions and his tough questioning of lawyers appearing before the court.

But another story was more troubling, raising questions about the potential for influence within the court. That story looked at subsidized trips taken by Supreme Court justices.

Americans have become jaded by paid trips taken by members of Congress, usually described as educational, but nearly always to exotic locations, luxury resorts or popular tourist destinations.

Given the low public opinion of Congress, the paid trips are seen as par for the course. But the Supreme Court was a different story — until the New York Times reported that Scalia had in recent years taken dozens of trips paid for by private sponsors. In fact, when Scalia died, he was staying at the private luxury hunting resort owned by a wealthy Texas businessman who was a friend of Scalia’s. That friend has many business interests, including a company that was the defendant in a lawsuit that had been appealed to the Supreme Court, but that the Court refused to hear.

The Times article noted that Scalia took 258 privately funded trips from 2004 to 2014, the most of any justice. In 2014, Scalia traveled to Hawaii, Switzerland and Ireland to give speeches or participate in moot court events.

Many experts on the courts say speeches by Supreme Court justices while on these subsidized trips are helpful because they explain how the court operates.

Scalia took the most privately paid trips, but other justices took advantage of the subsidized travel. Chief Justice John Roberts took the fewest trips, just 48, from 2004 to 2014. In total, the justices took 1,009 paid trips over that period.

The Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, paid for trips taken by Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas to Palm Springs, Calif., Park City, Utah, and Napa, Calif.

The majority of the trips taken by justices were, however, sponsored by universities in the U.S. as well as overseas.

There are rules covering such travel. High-level federal officials, including judges, are required to fill out forms for any gift valued at more than $335. But the rules, created after Watergate, exempt the cost of accommodation paid for by a private individual.

Critics of the current system say the Supreme Court should operate with an ethics committee that must agree to trips before they are taken. Supporters of the current system say that the Supreme Court justices operate within ethical guidelines — and the free travel is a nice perk for justices who make $250,000 a year, far less than partners at top corporate law firms.

At a minimum, there should be more transparency about paid travel by the justices. One option could be allow only university sponsored trips or travel paid for by nonpartisan groups, avoiding the taint of trips paid for by corporate interests.

While Congress is held in low regard by the public, the Supreme Court is still generally well-respected. Not addressing the paid travel issue could put that reputation at risk.