The US Supreme Court has taken the significant step of adopting a code of conduct following a series of ethical questions surrounding its justices. Ongoing disquiet centered on undisclosed luxury gifts bestowed on Justice Clarence Thomas and his relatives raised concerns triggering the development of the code.
The newly instituted Supreme Court Code of Conduct aims to address the current ambiguity surrounding the ethical rules that bind the court’s justices. According to Michael Broyde, a professor at Emory University School of Law, the document explicitly handles the issue of justices’ recusal whilst acknowledging the unique position the Supreme Court holds in the federal judiciary system.
The Supreme Court’s singular role necessitates the introduction of rules such as Canon 3B3 in the new code. The “rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification,” according to the text, since Supreme Court justices, unlike their counterparts in the federal district or courts of appeals, cannot be substituted.
While the adoption of a code of conduct is a positive move, Charles Geyh of Indiana University Maurer School of Law warns about the potential peril of it being a facade to placate critics while unethical behaviour persists unchecked. To make a real difference, justices must internalize the code and engage with it continuously, he suggests.
Danielle Caputo of the Campaign Legal Center highlights the shortcomings of the newly established code, claiming that it fails to meet the expectations of numerous good governance advocates. Criticizing its principles as suggestions rather than mandatory laws and bemoaning its lack of enforcement strategy, Caputo calls for stronger legislative action from Congress to establish robust and enforceable ethics rules for the Supreme Court in the future.
As Congress and the judiciary continue to debate, the impact of the code of conduct on the Supreme Court’s ethical controversies stands yet to be determined.