US Supreme Court Adopts First Ever Code of Ethics
The US Supreme Court has adopted and published its first ever code of ethics, which critics point out is non-binding and lacking any means of enforcement.
The decision to adopt a code of ethics comes after scrutiny over some undisclosed donations from wealthy benefactors to the justices. The most prominent case is that of Justice Clarence Thomas, who had significant expenses covered by Republican donors Harlan Crow and the Koch Brothers over the past twenty years, as detailed in an investigation by ProPublica.
All nine justices agreed upon the policy. A Statement of the Court said that the justices have already been following the same ethical principles outlined in the Code, and that the idea some justices felt unrestricted by ethical rules is “a misunderstanding” which the Code aims to “dispel”.
“For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice,” the statement reads.
“The absence of a Code, however, 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. 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.”
‘A Friendly Suggestion’
The Code sets out expected standards of behaviour – ranging from respecting the law to complying with restrictions on the acceptance of gifts as set out in the Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts. The Code is in no way enforceable: following its guidelines is left entirely to the discretion of each justice.
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, commented, “This is a long-overdue step by the justices, but a code of ethics is not binding unless there is a mechanism to investigate possible violations and enforce the rules. The honor system has not worked for members of the Roberts Court.”
Some critics went further, calling the adoption of the Code a “toothless stunt”.
Sarah Lipton-Lubet, President of Take Back the Court Action Fund, stated, “With 53 uses of the word ‘should’ and only 6 of the word ‘must,’ the court’s new ‘code of ethics’ reads a lot more like a friendly suggestion than a binding, enforceable guideline.”
