WASHINGTON — The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation Thursday to require the Supreme Court to establish a code of conduct, toughen financial disclosures and strengthen recusal requirements for judges.
The vote on the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act was 11-10 along party lines, with Republicans strongly opposed.
Initiated by Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, DR.I., the bill comes on the heels of reports of judges raising concerns about conflicts of interest.
“This legislation will be a crucial first step in restoring trust in the court after a steady stream of reports of ethical lapses by judges has been made public,” Durbin said, citing reports of possible ethical lapses by judges. judges. Judge Clarence Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “Public support for the Supreme Court is at an all time low.”
The bill would give the court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct and would allow the public to file ethics complaints that would be reviewed by a panel of randomly selected lower court judges. It would establish new rules for the disclosure of gifts and travel. And it would impose disqualification rules related to gifts, income and other potential conflicts.
The legislation would need 60 votes in the full Senate to defeat a likely Republican filibuster. And if it passes the Senate, it will still need approval in the GOP-controlled House, where leaders have expressed no interest in considering it.
Republicans criticized the legislation as an attempt to tarnish the reputation of certain conservative justices and argued that the Supreme Court can police itself without Congress intervening.
“What you’re trying to do is not improve the course; you are trying to destroy it as it exists. And it’s been a prolonged effort here,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, RS.C., the ranking Republican, calling it “a bill to destroy a conservative court” that the GOP worked hard to build. “This bill is going nowhere. All of us are going to vote no.”
Durbin rejected the argument that the bill targets conservatives.
“Far from it,” he said. “The reforms we are proposing would apply equal force to all judges.”
Complaints about Supreme Court ethics are nothing new, with liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg facing harsh criticism for labeling then-presidential candidate Donald Trump a “phony” during the 2016 election and conservative Justice Antonin Scalia going duck hunting with then Vice President Dick Cheney when Cheney was involved in a pending court case.
But recent ProPublica reports of undisclosed luxury trips or gifts accepted by Thomas and Judge Samuel Alito of billionaires with interests before the court sparked a public outcry and led Democrats to take action. Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that court staff working for Sotomayor encouraged institutions hosting events to purchase copies of her books.
The committee vote comes in the wake of waning public confidence in the Supreme Court, which delivered a series of conservative rulings under its new majority of six Republican appointees to three Democratic appointees.
A Quinnipiac National survey published Wednesday found that 36% of registered US voters approve of the way the Supreme Court is handling its work, while 56% disapprove. Most Republicans said they approve, while most Democrats and independents said they disapprove.
The poll found that 71% of voters say Supreme Court justices “are too influenced by politics,” including most Democrats, independents and even Republicans.
District and appellate court judges are bound by a judicial code of ethics which requires judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” Judges who violate the code may be investigated and reprimanded through a separate complaint process.
The Supreme Court, however, does not have any procedure to investigate complaints other than the substantial step of impeachment. The nine justices say they follow the spirit of the code, but have never adopted one of their own.
Republicans said, among other things, that the legislation could make it easier for liberal interests to force court members away from contentious cases, whether or not the complaint has any merit.
In April, Chief Justice John Roberts declined an invitation to testify before the committee. At the same time, the nine justices signed a statement of ethical principles that was widely criticized by both legal experts and Democrats.
Speaking in May, Roberts indicated that the legislation was not necessary and said he thought the court could make its own reforms and meet the highest standards so that a showdown with Congress was not necessary.
“I want to assure people that I am committed to making sure that we as a court hold ourselves to the highest standards of conduct. We continue to look at the things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment,” he said.
Some legal experts have suggested that any effort by Congress to legislate on ethics would unconstitutionally infringe on the Supreme Court’s status as a separate branch of government, though the court has in the past followed similar measures, including a requirement to file financial disclosure reports.
Senator John Kennedy, R-Los Angeles, predicted the bill would not become law.
“This thing is dead as fried chicken in the Senate,” he said. “And he’s as dead as the fried chicken in the house.”
