The Supreme Court Ethics & Accountability Act

A modern framework for enforceable ethics, transparent recusals, and public access to the Court

---

Executive Summary

The Supreme Court's authority ultimately rests on public legitimacy—the widespread belief that decisions are made by neutral arbiters applying law, not by officials influenced (or perceived to be influenced) by gifts, political patrons, or undisclosed conflicts. That legitimacy is under measurable strain. In national polling, trust in the Court's ability to "do what is right" has fallen to historically low levels, and large majorities—including Americans across party lines—support stronger, enforceable ethics rules for the justices.^{7 8}

In November 2023, the Supreme Court adopted a Code of Conduct for the first time.⁴ While that was a meaningful acknowledgment of public concern, the Code is largely self-enforced and does not, by itself, create an independent complaint process, standardized transparency for recusals, or modern disclosure systems that match the Court's outsized role in American life.^{4 5} Put plainly: the Court has ethics guidance, but the public still lacks the minimum "accountability plumbing" that exists in most high-trust institutions—clear rules, meaningful disclosure, a credible way to evaluate complaints, and predictable transparency when conflicts arise.

This paper proposes a consolidated reform: The Supreme Court Ethics & Accountability Act. It synthesizes the mechanisms in reveals from the provided policy draft (Document B) with a source-backed reform architecture (Document A), anchored in the core legislative approach exemplified by the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act proposals.^{1 2 3} The goal is not to politicize the Court. The goal is to depoliticize suspicion by making ethical compliance transparent, standardized, and credibly reviewable—while preserving judicial independence and preventing harassment or strategic abuse.

The problem

Three failures drive the current legitimacy gap:

1. A non-credible enforcement gap. Ethical guidance without an independent, structured complaint pathway invites a predictable public response: "Who watches the watchers?" The lower federal judiciary has established conduct norms and complaint processes; historically, the Supreme Court did not.^{5 12}
2. Recusal opacity and inconsistency. Federal law requires disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned, but Supreme Court recusals are often unexplained, and there is no uniform process for litigants to raise concerns that are reviewed by an independent body.⁶
3. Disclosure systems that are too slow, too fragmented, and too hard to analyze. Financial, gift, and travel disclosures often appear as difficult-to-search PDFs or scattered filings, leaving watchdogs to do "manual extraction" long after the news cycle has passed.²

The solution

The Act establishes seven integrated components:

• A binding, notice-and-comment Code of Conduct with required public posting and searchable access.³
• A structured complaint intake and investigation pathway modeled on existing federal judicial complaint frameworks, including an investigative panel empowered to develop findings and recommendations.³
• Clearer recusal triggers and mandatory transparency, including duty-to-know/duty-to-notify concepts and a defined process for reviewing certified recusal motions.^{3 6}
• Modernized disclosure rules for gifts, travel, reimbursements, and income—aligned at minimum to congressional disclosure baselines—and extended to Supreme Court law clerks in relevant contexts.³
• Party and amicus disclosures to surface conflicts and funding relationships tied to Supreme Court litigation, plus audits for compliance.³
• Guardrails against strategic "recusal games," including rules to prevent amicus filings designed to force disqualification.³
• Public access modernization: livestreaming/archiving of Supreme Court proceedings (at minimum, oral arguments and opinion announcements) with searchable archives, building on the Court's existing publication infrastructure.^{1 9}

The benefit

This package is designed to produce measurable outcomes: fewer undisclosed conflicts, faster detection of ethics risks, better-informed recusal decisions, reduced reputational volatility, and ultimately higher institutional trust. The political upside is unusually strong: public support for stricter ethics rules is broad and deep, making this a rare "pro-accountability" reform with cross-ideological appeal.⁸

---

The Problem Statement

1) Legitimacy is declining—and ethics is a central driver

Trust in the Supreme Court has dropped to modern lows in national survey research.⁷ At the same time, the public overwhelmingly supports a stricter ethics regime for justices—support that is notable for both scale and consistency across subgroups.⁸ These are not abstract metrics: legitimacy affects compliance, stability, and the perceived fairness of the rule of law, especially when the Court rules on high-salience issues.

2) The Supreme Court's ethics framework remains structurally weaker than comparable institutions

The Supreme Court's 2023 Code of Conduct helps define expectations, but it does not itself create (a) an independent enforcement pathway, (b) standardized transparency for recusals, or (c) modern, machine-friendly disclosure norms comparable to other high-trust governance systems.^{4 5} The result is a credibility gap: ethics questions arise, but the public has no consistent way to see what happened, how it was reviewed, and why a given outcome is appropriate.

3) Recusal is legally required but procedurally opaque at the Supreme Court

Federal recusal law sets substantive standards, including the widely cited "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" principle.⁶ Yet at the Supreme Court, recusal decisions can be effectively unreviewable, inconsistently explained, and difficult for parties (and the public) to evaluate. When the Court resolves cases with enormous policy consequences, even perceived conflicts can impose real legitimacy costs.

4) Disclosures are often too difficult to analyze in real time

Even when disclosures exist, they frequently appear as hard-to-search, non-standardized documents. That makes it easy for conflicts to be discovered only after decisions are made, undermining the public's sense that the system is operating with transparency and integrity.²

---

The Proposed Reform

This reform merges the structural mechanisms described in your provided act outline (Document B) with proven statutory tools and disclosure/recusal modernization concepts assembled in your source library (Document A), yielding a single coherent act.^{1 2 3}

Component A — Binding ethics code with public notice-and-comment and searchable posting

Mechanism: Require the Supreme Court to issue and maintain a Code of Conduct on a fixed timeline, with public notice and opportunity for comment, and require the Court to publish ethics rules in a full-text, searchable format on its website.³

Why it matters: A code is only as credible as its transparency and predictability. Notice-and-comment reduces the risk of "private rulemaking" and improves legitimacy by allowing the public, bar associations, and ethics experts to flag ambiguities before they become scandals.

Component B — Complaint intake and a credible investigation pathway

Mechanism: Establish procedures—modeled on existing federal judicial complaint systems—allowing individuals to file complaints alleging that a justice violated the Code, recusal obligations, or other applicable federal law, or engaged in conduct undermining Court integrity. Create an investigative panel empowered to investigate and provide findings/recommendations, with controlled publication when in the public interest.³

Key design safeguards (anti-harassment / anti-politicization):

• Screening for facially insufficient, duplicative, or bad-faith complaints
• Confidentiality during preliminary review
• Clear standards for publication/redaction to protect sensitive information
• Consequences for knowingly false submissions

Why it matters: Public trust depends on credible answers to the question: "What happens when something goes wrong?" A complaint process signals seriousness without requiring perfect outcomes.

Component C — Duty to know about conflicts + duty to notify

Mechanism: Require justices to conduct a reasonable investigation to identify potential conflicts (duty to know) and notify parties and the public when such conflicts are identified (duty to notify), with clear procedures and timelines.³

Why it matters: Passive disclosure fails when sophisticated litigants obscure connections. Active investigation prevents "plausible deniability" from masking real conflicts.

Component D — Certified recusal motion review by an independent panel

Mechanism: Allow parties to file certified recusal motions that are reviewed by a defined panel (e.g., senior judges or a special subset of the judiciary), providing an independent evaluation when justices are asked to step aside.^{3 6}

Why it matters: Self-review creates an inherent credibility gap. When stakes are high, independent evaluation builds trust without usurping judicial discretion.

Component E — Modernized gift/travel/income disclosure standards (including clerk coverage where relevant)

Mechanism: Direct the Counselor to the Chief Justice (with approval) to establish disclosure rules for gifts, income, and reimbursements received by justices and their law clerks—at minimum matching disclosure information required under congressional rules.³

Implementation note: To meet modern transparency expectations, the Act should require:

• machine-readable disclosures (structured data + PDFs)
• consistent identifiers and categories
• predictable update timelines
• a public API for bulk analysis (rate-limited if necessary)

Component F — Party and amicus disclosures + audits + anti-recusal manipulation

Mechanism: Require parties and amici to disclose relevant gifts/income/reimbursements provided to justices within a defined lookback window, and disclose lobbying contacts or substantial nomination-support expenditures. Require amicus briefs to disclose major contributors and material involvement, and mandate annual audits to ensure compliance. Add procedural rules to prevent amicus filings designed to force recusal ("amicus-based disqualification games").³

Why it matters: The Court's docket is shaped by sophisticated networks. Transparency about who funds and shapes amicus activity helps courts—and the public—evaluate whether litigation is being used as a conflict-delivery system.

Component G — Oversight loop: studies, metrics, and periodic independent evaluation

Mechanism: Require periodic empirical study of compliance with federal recusal requirements by the Federal Judicial Center and periodic evaluation by GAO, creating a durable, nonpartisan feedback loop.³

Why it matters: "Trust" improvements should be measurable. Studies also help Congress refine the law without guessing.

Component H — Public access modernization: livestreaming and permanent archives

Mechanism (as integrated from Document B): Require livestreaming and archiving of key Supreme Court proceedings (at minimum oral arguments and opinion announcements), with searchable video archives and synchronized transcripts, building on existing publication infrastructure.^{1 9}

Why it matters: Transparency is not only about disclosures; it is also about civic comprehension. Real-time access reduces misinterpretation, expands educational value, and makes accountability journalism more accurate.

---

Impact Analysis

1) Projected benefits

• Reduced conflict risk through earlier detection (party/amicus disclosures), clearer triggers, and standardized review pathways.^{3 6}
• Lower reputational volatility by converting "shock revelations" into predictable compliance workflows.²
• Higher institutional trust by aligning governance with what the public strongly supports: enforceable ethics rules for the Court.^{7 8}
• Better compliance incentives (audits + public posting + structured complaint review) without criminalizing ordinary judgment calls.

2) Economic and operational impact

Direct costs are primarily administrative: staffing an investigation mechanism, modernizing disclosure publication, and maintaining searchable archives. These are modest compared to the societal cost of legitimacy erosion in the nation's highest court. A frequently cited CBO estimate for comparable reforms placed implementation in the low millions over a multi-year window (as reported by court-reform advocates summarizing CBO materials).¹³
Indirect benefits are large but harder to quantify: reduced perception of bias, improved stability of legal outcomes, fewer conflict-driven controversies, and higher public compliance with rulings.

3) Precedent and constitutional fit

This reform operates in a well-established lane: Congress has long legislated on judicial administration, disclosure, and disqualification standards.^{3 6} The Act preserves separation of powers by:

• focusing on ethics and procedure, not altering case outcomes
• using structured transparency and review mechanisms
• leaving final institutional actions within the judiciary's constitutional role, while requiring public-facing accountability

---

Conclusion

Trust is not a cosmetic metric; it is the substrate of lawful authority. With public confidence depressed⁷ and overwhelming support for stricter ethics rules⁸, Congress has a rare opportunity to enact a reform that is both substantively necessary and politically durable. The Supreme Court's 2023 Code was a start⁴—but a start is not a system.

The Supreme Court Ethics & Accountability Act offers a complete, practical framework: enforceable ethics, transparent recusals, modern disclosures, and meaningful public access—designed to strengthen the Court by making integrity visible.

---

Reference List

1. Document B (Uploaded) - "5 - Supreme Court Ethics and Accountability Act" (your draft structure and livestreaming/archiving integration).

2. Document A (Uploaded) - "Supreme Court Ethics and Accountability Source Library" (curated source set, polling, and background evidence).

3. U.S. Congress - S.359, "Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023" (Reported Senate version, PDF).
   Link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/359

4. Supreme Court of the United States - Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (PDF, Nov. 13, 2023).
   Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/code-of-conduct-for-justices.pdf

5. Congressional Research Service - LSB11078, "The Supreme Court Adopts a Code of Conduct" (Nov. 2023).
   Link: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11078

6. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute - 28 U.S.C. § 455 (Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge).
   Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

7. Annenberg Public Policy Center - "Trust in U.S. Supreme Court continues to sink" (Oct. 8, 2024).
   Link: https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/trust-in-us-supreme-court-continues-to-sink/

8. Marquette Law School Poll - National survey (Oct. 17, 2024) reporting support for strict ethics code for Supreme Court justices.
   Link: https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2024/10/17/national-survey-of-american-public-opinion-and-election-issues-october-2024/

9. Supreme Court of the United States - Oral Argument Audio archive (site section demonstrating current publication infrastructure).
   Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

10. ProPublica - "Clarence Thomas and the Undisclosed Luxury Travel…" (Apr. 2023).
    Link: https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

11. ProPublica - "Samuel Alito and the Luxury Fishing Trip…" (Jun. 2023).
    Link: https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

12. U.S. Courts - Code of Conduct for United States Judges (Judicial Conference ethics framework for lower federal courts).
    Link: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

13. Fix the Court - Summary referencing CBO cost estimate for S.359.
    Link: https://fixthecourt.com/2023/08/cbo-scores-supreme-court-ethics-recusal-and-transparency-act/

Changelog

• December 26, 2024 — Initial draft published