The Supreme Court adopted its first ethics code on November 13, despite continued criticism over secret trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some judges.
The policy, which all nine justices agreed to, does not appear to impose significant new requirements on them, and they even said in an unsigned statement that they have long adhered to ethical standards.
“The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this Court, unlike all other lawyers in this country, regard themselves as unconstrained by any ethical rules,” the justices wrote. “To address this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long recognized as guiding our conduct.”
The code leaves compliance to the judges themselves and does not create other means of enforcement.
The issue has been preoccupying the court for several months, following a series of stories questioning the judges’ ethical practices. Many of those stories focused on Judge Clarence Thomas and his failure to disclose travel and other financial ties to wealthy conservative donors, including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. But Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor have also come under scrutiny.
Three justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, have expressed support for an ethics code in recent months. In May, Chief Justice John Roberts said the court could do more to “adhere to the highest ethical standards,” without offering any specifics.
Public confidence and approval of the court is hovering around a record low, according to a Gallup poll released just before the court’s new term began on Oct. 2.
Just last week, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the justices could ease some of the criticism and spur a Democratic push to impose a code of ethics on the court by implement their own code of ethics. policy.
Mr. Durbin’s panel plans to subpoena Mr. Crow and conservative activist Leonard Leo over their roles in organizing and paying for judges’ luxury travel.
The committee investigated the court’s ethics and adopted a code of ethics, although all 10 Republicans on the panel voted against it.
Republicans complained that Democrats were mainly reacting to decisions by the conservative-dominated court that they did not like, including overturning nationwide abortion rights.
The proposal requires judges to provide more information about potential conflicts of interest. It would allow impartial panels of judges to review judges’ decisions not to recuse cases and require public, written explanations of their decisions not to recuse them. It would also seek to improve transparency around gifts judges receive and establish a process to investigate and enforce violations around required disclosures. The Democratic bill had little chance of becoming law in the Republican-controlled House, let alone the closely divided Senate.
The push for an ethics code was sparked by a series of stories from the investigative news site ProPublica, detailing the relationship between Mr. Crow and Mr. Thomas. Mr. Crow paid for nearly annual vacations for more than two decades, bought from Mr. Thomas and others the Georgia home where the judge’s mother still lives, and helped pay for a relative’s private education.
ProPublica also reported on Alito’s fishing trip to Alaska with a GOP donor, a trip that Mr. Leo helped arrange. The Associated Press reported that Ms. Sotomayor, aided by her staff, has boosted sales of her books through college visits over the past decade.
The court’s first step on ethics, in the spring, did not reassure critics. Mr. Roberts declined an invitation from Mr. Durbin to testify before the judicial panel, but the chief justice issued a “Statement of Ethical Principles and Practices,” signed by all nine justices, describing the ethical rules they follow on travel, gifts and outdoor activities. income.
Mr. Roberts’ statement said the nine justices “reaffirm and restate the fundamental ethical principles and practices to which they espouse in carrying out their responsibilities as members of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The statement promised at least minor additional disclosure if one or more of them choose not to participate in a case. But the judges have been inconsistent in doing so since then.
This story was reported by The Associated Press.