Sponsors (28)
Last progress May 20, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on May 20, 2025 by Sheldon Whitehouse
Creates a comprehensive set of new ethics, disclosure, recusal, complaint, and review rules for the federal judiciary with special, enforceable requirements for Supreme Court justices. It requires codes of conduct, public notice and comment, public online posting of rules, new reporting and gift-disclosure rules, procedures to file and investigate complaints against justices, strengthened recusal/disqualification procedures, mandatory disclosure of amicus funding, and audits and studies of compliance. Establishes specific procedures and panels to handle complaints and disqualification motions (including multi-judge review panels), deadlines for rulemaking and disclosures (including some within one year), and new reporting and audit duties for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, and the Government Accountability Office.
The Supreme Court must issue a code of conduct for its justices no later than 180 days after the date of enactment, after appropriate public notice and opportunity for comment in accordance with section 2071.
The Judicial Conference of the United States must issue a code of conduct for judges of the courts of appeals, the district courts (including bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges), and the Court of International Trade no later than 180 days after the date of enactment, after appropriate public notice and opportunity for comment in accordance with section 2071.
The Supreme Court and the Judicial Conference may modify the applicable codes of conduct after giving appropriate public notice and opportunity for comment in accordance with section 2071.
The Supreme Court must make available on its website, in full-text, searchable, sortable, and downloadable format, copies of the code of conduct issued under section 365(a), any rules established by the Counselor to the Chief Justice under section 677, and any other related rules or resolutions determined by the Chief Justice or issued by or agreed to by the Counselor or justices.
Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Supreme Court must establish procedures (modeled after sections 351–364) under which individuals may file complaints with the Court, or the Court may identify complaints, alleging that a justice has violated the code of conduct, section 455, any other applicable federal law, or has otherwise engaged in conduct that undermines the integrity of the Court.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Who is directly affected and how:
Supreme Court justices: Face new, statutory ethics and disclosure obligations (a formal code of conduct), new rules on gifts/income/reimbursements and required disclosures tied to cases, and a formal complaint and investigatory process that can produce public reports.
Federal judges (district, circuit, bankruptcy, magistrate judges) and their law clerks: Subject to strengthened recusal/disqualification rules, expanded duties to identify conflicts, possible new disclosure expectations for some courts, and a new statutory process for disqualification motions that can pause cases.
Litigants and parties: Gain new tools and information (amicus and party disclosures, public court notices) and may see increased motions to disqualify or temporary delays in proceedings while disqualification panels decide motions.
Amicus filers and funders (nonprofits, interest groups, wealthy donors, law firms): Must disclose contributors and funding above set thresholds when filing briefs; will be subject to annual audits by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and possible enforcement measures.
Court clerks, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Judicial Conference: Increased administrative responsibilities to post notices, track and publish disqualification records, run audits, and adopt new internal processes.
Federal Judicial Center and GAO: Assigned studies, reports, and periodic audits; allocated oversight roles and granted access to records.
Potential downstream effects and trade-offs:
Transparency and public trust: More disclosure and public reporting may increase perceived accountability of the judiciary but depends on enforcement and comprehensiveness of rules.
Case processing and delay risk: A statutory review process for disqualification motions and mandatory case pauses could increase litigation delays, additional filings, and administrative workload for courts.
Administrative burden and resource needs: Courts and judicial agencies will need personnel time and systems to publish disclosures, maintain records, perform audits, and respond to complaints; the legislation does not appear to appropriate funds for these new operational tasks.
Legal and constitutional pressure points: New statutory oversight of Supreme Court conduct, investigatory panels, and mandatory disclosures are likely to prompt legal questions about separation of powers, judicial independence, and procedural protections for justices.
Political controversy risk: Measures targeting the ethics and recusal processes of the Supreme Court are likely to be politically contentious and may trigger debate about scope and fairness of the new rules.
Updated 2 days ago
Last progress May 20, 2025 (8 months ago)