The Supreme Court announced Monday the justices will adopt an ethics code as they face increasing pressure over undisclosed travel and gifts.
Concerns about alleged ethical improprieties by the justices ignited earlier this year in April after the nonprofit outlet ProPublica reported that Justice Clarence Thomas had gone on trips paid for by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. The high court released its new 14-page guidance, which includes rules for accepting travel opportunities, on Monday afternoon.
WILL HUNTER BIDEN’S FIGHT AGAINST FEDERAL FIREARM VIOLATIONS REACH THE SUPREME COURT?
The new guidance appears to allow justices to exercise their own discretion for accepting certain travel gifts, stating they “may accept reasonable compensation and reimbursement of expenses for permitted activities” if the source of the gift does not seem intended to influence a justice’s duties “or otherwise appear improper.”
“Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual or reasonably estimated costs of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the Justice and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the Justice’s spouse or relative,” the new guidance states under a section titled “COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT, FINANCIAL REPORTING.”
The nine justices have “agreed to comply with the statute governing financial disclosure, and the undersigned Members of the Court each individually reaffirm that commitment,” the section adds.
While the publication of the guidelines marks the first time the high court has adopted a specific ethics code applicable to the nine justices directly, judicial advocates who have been calling for this change for years will likely be disappointed that the 14-page document does not spell out any accountability measures, or ways to keep the justices bound to their ethics code.
“I can’t see how it is binding or consequential beyond through impeachment, which is the only way a co-equal branch (Congress) can exert authority over the judiciary,” attorney Andrew Lieb of Lieb at Law told the Washington Examiner.
In the wake of allegations of ethical impropriety by some justices, including Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor, the high court has repeatedly said it consults the ethical guidance that applies to lower court federal judges. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the full court suggested in the document on Monday that the absence of a code in recent years led to a “misunderstanding” by the public that they somehow regard themselves as unrestricted by ethics rules, according to a cover note at the top of the new code of conduct.
“The absence of a Code … has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,” the statement reads. “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”
Nearly every active justice on the nine-member court has said in recent interviews that they believed adopting an ethics code would be a good idea, and the justices have been toiling over a code for years.
The new ethics code comes less than a week after Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were planning to issue subpoenas to Crow and the Federalist Society’s co-chairman Leonard Leo, who helped draft former President Donald Trump‘s short list of high court nominees that cemented the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority on the bench. That vote was ultimately delayed after opposition from GOP lawmakers alleged the vote was an attempt to politicize the judiciary.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a critic of the conservative legal movement and current high court composition, called the new ethics rules a “long-overdue step by the justices.” Whitehouse used the moment to tout his legislation, which he says would create a “transparent process for complaints and allow a panel of chief judges from the lower courts to investigate and make recommendations based on those complaints.”
Other liberal judicial advocacy groups like Accountable.US argued the announcement on Monday “fails to meet the moment” in a statement expressing dissatisfaction over a lack of enforcement.
The move to adopt a code of conduct also marks an about-face from a 2011 year-end report by Roberts, which at the time dismissed calls to adopt a code of conduct.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
More than 10 years later, further calls to expand the newly created code of conduct are unlikely to manifest, as the high court’s step to adopt the new code marked a substantial leap from its previous position at the start of the 2010s.
Read the 14-page ethics code here:
