Supreme Court Ethics Bill Mandates Code of Conduct and Forces Justices to Disclose Lobbying Ties

This legislation, titled the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2025, aims to drag the Supreme Court into the same ethics and transparency rules that govern the rest of the federal judiciary. The core of the bill requires the Supreme Court to adopt a formal, public code of conduct within 180 days, complete with a process for the public to file complaints against Justices—a system modeled after the one currently used for lower federal judges (SEC. 2).

The New Rulebook for the Nine

For anyone who’s ever wondered why the highest court operates without the clear, standardized ethics rules the rest of the government follows, this bill is the answer. Within six months, the Court has to create a formal Code of Conduct and post it online. Crucially, it must also set up a complaint system where people can report alleged misconduct. These complaints won’t go into a black hole; they’ll be sent to a five-judge judicial investigation panel, randomly selected from circuit chief judges, which has the power to investigate, take sworn testimony, issue subpoenas, and recommend disciplinary action (SEC. 2). Think of it as finally giving the public a formal HR department for the Supreme Court. However, there’s a catch: the bill allows the Court to restrict people who file “repetitive, harassing, or just plain frivolous” complaints, which could potentially be used to shut down legitimate, persistent scrutiny if not carefully managed.

Gift Restrictions and Financial Deep Dive

The bill also tightens the rules around money. Justices and their law clerks will now be subject to the same gift and disclosure standards as members of Congress (SEC. 3). If a Senator or Representative has to report it or turn it down, a Justice must do the same. This means more transparency around travel, gifts, and income that could influence judicial decisions. But the biggest change is in the disqualification rules (SEC. 4). A judge—including a Supreme Court Justice—must now step away from a case if they know a party involved, or an affiliate, has either lobbied the judge directly or spent a "significant amount of money" trying to get that judge nominated, confirmed, or appointed. This financial check goes back six years before the case even started. This provision is designed to address the concern that outside groups spend huge sums to get specific judges on the bench, only to appear before them later. The judge is now actively required to investigate their own financial interests and those of their spouse and minor children to ensure they don't have a conflict.

Who’s Funding the Arguments?

It’s not just the judges who face new rules; the parties arguing cases do too. The bill forces parties and amici curiae (friends of the court who file advisory briefs) to disclose specific financial ties (SEC. 6 and SEC. 7). If you’re filing a brief, you now have to reveal if you or your affiliated organizations gave any gift, income, or reimbursement to any Supreme Court Justice during the two years leading up to the case. For amici briefs, the disclosure is even more detailed: you must name any contributor who gave the organization more than $100,000 or 3% of its annual revenue in the previous year. This is a direct shot at making sure the Justices know exactly who is bankrolling the arguments they are hearing, preventing dark money from influencing the Court’s decision-making process.

The Internal Review Problem

If a litigant believes a judge has a conflict and files a motion to disqualify them, the case stops until a review panel decides the issue (SEC. 5). For lower court judges, this panel is made up of three random judges from outside their court. However, if the motion targets a Supreme Court Justice, the entire Supreme Court—minus the Justice being challenged—acts as the review panel. This means the highest court retains the power to police itself on disqualification issues, a point that raises concerns about internal accountability versus external oversight. While the bill aims for transparency, studies and reports on judicial compliance will be conducted by the Federal Judicial Center and the GAO to ensure these new rules are actually followed (SEC. 9).