The Supreme Court on Monday issued a formal code of conduct after months of criticism from liberal advocates accusing some of the conservative members of the bench of unprofessional relationships with billionaires.
In a 15-page press release, the nine justices said they follow certain requirements for recusal — such as not sitting on a case in which a relative or spouse is involved. They said they have always followed rules similar to other federal courts, but the justices put it on record to avoid criticism.
“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 said. “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.”
Justices will recuse themselves if they have a financial interest in the outcome of a case or if they had any involvement in the litigation before joining the bench.
They should avoid political activity and follow the Judicial Conference’s regulations on gifts and financial disclosure.
The justices may provide consultation in public hearings and speak, write and teach on matters related to the law. They may be reimbursed and given just compensation, per the code.
Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, said the code should quell some recent criticisms of the high court.
“As the justices’ statement notes, this doesn’t really change how they operate but should be a confidence-building measure for the public. It surely won’t satisfy left-wing activists and their political avatars like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse but should throw cold water on any congressional efforts to regulate the court,” he said.
Mr. Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, faulted the justices’ ethics code for lacking an enforcement mechanism or a way to file and investigate an ethics complaint.
“This Court, and this Court alone, the supposed guardian of due process, still exempts itself,” he wrote on X.
Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, said the code leaves “much to be desired.”
“For example, under the new code, there remains today no way for a lawmaker or member of the public to file a complaint against a justice for misconduct. There’s no way for an outside source to advocate for recusal when a justice participates in a case despite an obvious conflict. There are serious oversights that demand corrections,” he said.
The justices produced their ethics code after Senate Democrats threatened to subpoena conservative allies of the justices and after a series of reports that some justices accepted lavish gifts.
Democrats have primarily targeted Harlan Crow, a Republican megadonor and friend of Justice Clarence Thomas, and Leonard Leo, an influential conservative judicial activist.
Republicans have said the threat of subpoena for information about financial relationships with the justices was an effort to delegitimize the high court.
Senate Democrats have been going back and forth with Mr. Crow for months about his financial relationship with Justice Thomas.
In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Mr. Crow to provide detailed information about his friendship with Justice Thomas and about certain gifts or expenses he made on the jurist’s behalf.
Mr. Crow, through his attorneys, declined to answer some of the inquiries. He said it suggested a separation of powers conflict.
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee said Mr. Leo refused to provide the committee with information about his relationship with the justices.
The requests were made after a series of news articles about Justice Thomas and his friendship with Mr. Crow, a billionaire real estate developer.
ProPublica reported that Mr. Crow paid private school tuition at Hidden Lake Academy and Randolph-Macon Academy for Justice Thomas’ great-nephew, whom the justice took in to raise from the age of 6.
The tuition total could have cost more than $150,000, according to ProPublica. Justice Thomas did not disclose the payments in his financial disclosure forms, and the news outlet suggested that the omission runs afoul of the ethics standards required of a federal judge.
ProPublica reported in April that Justice Thomas did not disclose that he took multiple luxury vacations with Mr. Crow or that Mr. Crow bought the home of Justice Thomas’ mother, even though she continued to live there.
The Washington Post followed with an April 16 article examining what appeared to be a typo on the justice’s financial disclosure related to family real estate holdings, in which he reported rental income to Ginger Ltd. Partnership instead of Ginger Holdings LLC.
The New York Times followed with a piece critical of Justice Thomas and other Republican appointees collecting salaries to teach courses at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law.
Justice Thomas has defended his friendship with Mr. Crow and said he consulted with colleagues about disclosure requirements and didn’t skirt any rules.
Mr. Crow, in a statement through his office this month, said the Democrats’ move to issue a subpoena was disappointing.
Mr. Leo has said Democrats are seeking to destroy the Supreme Court. In a letter this month to the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Leo said the requests appear to be political retaliation in violation of the Constitution.
News articles involving Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and ethics concerns about luxury travel hosted by billionaires have also surfaced.
Justice Alito has denied any wrongdoing.
The high court has not had a mandatory code of ethics until now, even though lower court judges are expected to avoid impropriety or conduct business with anyone who might come before the bench.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has said that the high court generally follows the Judicial Conference’s Code of Ethics, which has been binding on lower courts since 1991.
In July, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats led by Mr. Whitehouse advanced a bill requiring the high court to adopt a code of ethics.
That legislation has not received a vote on the Senate floor. It likely would not meet the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster in the 51-49 chamber.
The justices preempted the Senate by releasing their code.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.