Recently, the Supreme Court promulgated an ethics code following severe criticism on issues of judicial ethics. The newly issued code, however, has left disenchanted those who had been eagerly awaiting SCOTUS ethics measures – much like fans of Chance the Rapper awaiting The Big Day.
Notable issues include long-standing SCOTUS ethics issues such as financial gifts, travel compensations received by Justice Clarence Thomas from billionaire Harlan Crow, and other financial entanglement between the two. Additional points of concern involve the questionable real estate deal of Neil Gorsuch, luxury trips by Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor’s publishing deal.
The primary concern with the new code is the glaring lack of enforceability. Without an effective mechanism to enforce, the code seems more akin to “thoughts and prayers” than actual policy as pointed out by Steve Vladeck.
Widespread dubious scenarios within the Court also cast a cloud over the actual coverage of the code. Additionally, it appears that the code, borrowed heavily from the ethical code applicable to the lower federal courts minus enforcement, isn’t exempt from problematic carveouts.
Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth criticized the measures taken by the Court, expressing them as a mere PR stunt. His clear takeaway from the new code is the vague commitment towards improving best practices in ethics and hoping that other judges will adopt them. Unfortunately, to him, it is unclear whether this would mean actual change or just lip service. The new code leaves no room for filing a complaint against a justice for misconduct and lacks a pathway for advocating for recusal over a conflict of interest.
The full Code of Conduct for Justices promulgated by the Supreme Court can be viewed here.