Senate Committee Advances Supreme Court Ethics Bill

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced legislation that would mandate the Supreme Court to implement a code of ethics and abide by new standards regarding financial disclosure and case recusal requirements. 

In an 11-10 vote along partisan lines, the Democratic-led committee successfully brought the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act to the floor despite Republican efforts to stop the bill’s advancement. 

The bill was introduced on Feb. 9 but has since gained more traction following controversial Supreme Court decisions this term, such as the decision to strike down affirmative action race-conscious admissions policies, as well as recent reports of alleged misconduct from some justices on the bench. 

Twenty-six Democratic senators have signed on to co-sponsor the bill introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., along with Judiciary Chair Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who is helping to lead the fight. 

District and appeals court judges are all required to follow a code of ethics, and if judges are found to have possibly violated that code, they can be investigated and disciplined, but the U.S. Supreme Court does not have an explicitly outlined and actionable code. 

“Unlike every other federal official, Supreme Court justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct,” Durbin said. “They are the most powerful judges in America, and yet, they are not required to follow the most basic ethical standards.”

Concerns about possible ethical violations on the Supreme Court date back many years, including when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg received a $1 million award from a liberal foundation in 2019, which she donated, as well as recent reports alleging Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. did not disclose luxury trips and financial gifts. 

“All of us are subject to enforceable codes of conduct that prohibit us from accepting gifts and using taxpayer funds for personal gain,” Durbin said. “We are required to make personal disclosures about our finances, and [there are] consequences if we fail to meet the standards. The same is not true for the nine justices across the street.”

Numerous amendments were introduced and debated throughout the hearing, including an amendment drawn up by Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., that would condemn recent racially motivated verbal attacks, specifically against Thomas. 

On July 13, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called for term limits and new ethical guidelines for the Supreme Court in an interview with the Michigan Chronicle.

Ellison also stated in the interview that Thomas should be removed and compared him to an “Uncle Tom” character, stating that, “Anybody who’s watched the movie Django [Unchained], just watch Stephen, and you see Clarence Thomas.” 

Referencing the interview, Kennedy asked, “How can you not condemn a statement calling Justice Clarence Thomas a house slave? It’s un-American, it’s unconscionable and I can’t believe we would not condemn it.

“You either condemn it or you don’t, and that’s all this amendment does,” he concluded. 

Other Democratic senators disagreed with Kennedy’s assertion, stating the amendment would introduce executive oversight into a matter they believe should remain within the Department of Justice. 

“I, for one, do condemn that sort of rhetoric, but the senator’s amendment does more than that,” Whitehouse said. “It calls upon the Biden administration … to protect Supreme Court justices, including Justice Thomas, in light of flagrant violations of the law designed to intimidate justices.

“We’ve had a lot of time in this committee trying to make sure the White House and the political side of the executive branch is kept out of internal Department of Justice law enforcement decisions,” Whitehouse continued. 

Kennedy’s initial amendment was not successful, despite spending a significant portion of time at the hearing debating it, but an altered version of the amendment to condemn racially motivated attacks against Thomas was eventually passed with the inserted phrase, “any current or former Supreme Court justices,” to account for all justices rather than just one. 

Other Republican-led amendments were unsuccessfully introduced, such as the amendment pushed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that would limit the Supreme Court to only nine justices as well as Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., to place stricter requirements on members of news organizations covering the Supreme Court to protect from leaks and biased reporting. 

Whitehouse adamantly disagreed with a few of these, stating that some amendments had nothing to do with the “ethics mess that has taken place at the Supreme Court.”

“It just keeps getting worse,” Whitehouse stated, referring to information released Thursday by The Washington Post regarding activist and Federalist Society executive Leonard Leo, who allegedly may be financially linked to Thomas.

“Until we know what the true depth is of the problem at the court, it’s impossible to know what the appropriate response is,” he concluded.

You can reach us at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter