Supreme Court Code of Conduct Mandate Advanced by Senate Panel

Legislation requiring the Supreme Court adopt a binding code of conduct was approved by a Senate committee, a measure pushed by majority Democrats and fueled by controversy about alleged ethical lapses.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-10 in favor of the bill (S. 359) on Thursday. No Republicans backed it in committee, and both sides indicated the lack of bipartisan support would doom its prospects for passage.

Still, Democrats promoted the proposals as urgently necessary to improve transparency at the conservative-led court that’s resisted calls over the years, including from a few Republicans, to take steps on its own to improve transparency.

“Unlike every other federal official, Supreme Court justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct. They’re the most powerful judges in America, and yet they’re not required to follow even the most basic ethical standards,” Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.

Supreme Court ethics gained new attention this year following ProPublica reports about Justice Clarence Thomas and luxury vacations, real estate deals, and school tuition payments involving billionaire and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow that weren’t reported on financial disclosures.

Other ethics questions involving justices on both sides of the ideological divide and the court’s opaque recusal practices also fueled demands for accountability mainly by progressives. They also criticize the justices’ private associations with conservative interests that result in attention and perks, disclosed or not.

Disclosure, Recusal

The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act would require the court to adopt a code of conduct similar to what’s in place for the judiciary as a whole.

The court, including law clerks, would have to adopt new disclosure rules for gifts, travel, and income that are similar to those followed by members of Congress; Embrace more transparent recusal practices, including public explanations of when justices step away from a case, and create a process for the public to submit ethics complaints against the justices that would be overseen by a random panel of lower court judges.

GOP Resistance

Republicans on the panel objected to the mandates, saying the effort was micromanaging and an attack on the court’s conservative majority by liberals unhappy with recent decisions, including the overturning abortion rights.

“What you’re trying to do is not improve the court, you’re trying to destroy it as it exists,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

“I can assure the American people this ill-conceived effort in the name of reforming the court will go nowhere in the United States Senate,” Graham said.

The court has long resisted calls for a code of conduct. Chief Justice John Roberts has said he’s committed to the highest ethical standards and that the justices follow ethics laws for the judiciary and should continue to police themselves. He stresses that any congressional mandate would violate separation of powers.

Under pressure over the Thomas controversy, the justices agreed this year to a new disclosure policy around hospitality, which progressives deemed insufficient.

Leaks, Security

Democrats also defeated Republican proposals to expand the power of law enforcement in protecting justices, allow judges to carry guns, and make leaks of federal court documents a crime.

Several amendments were mostly called irrelevant by majority Democrats before they were defeated on party line votes.

One, condemning racist statements against the justices, was approved unanimously, while a second, banning stock ownership and trading for Congress and senior executive branch officials, fell in a bipartisan vote. The securities prohibition measure is part of proposed bi-partisan legislation that Durbin said should be discussed.