19 September 2026
The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill Thursday to establish a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices and create a process to investigate complaints about misconduct. In a narrow 11-10 party-line vote, members sent S. 359, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023, to the full Senate. If signed into law, the bill would be the first major ethics measure applied to the Supreme Court in over 1 1/2 centuries.
What the bill would do
The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act would:
Compel Supreme Court justices to adopt a code of conduct, like the ones governing lower federal courts
Set up a process for investigating alleged violations of the code or other laws
Require any recusal from a case to be explained to the public
Enhance disclosure when a justice has a connection to a party or amicus in a case before them
"It is unfortunate that we must take this legislative action, but the Supreme Court has failed to establish a code of conduct for its own justices, and the justices have shown few signs of doing so," said Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Party-line vote lacks support from GOP
Opponents argued the measure in unfair and "premature" given no serious wrongdoing has been proven, while supporters cited mounting ethics lapses that called for action. "The Supreme Court is the most powerful court in the country and ought to be held to the highest ethical standards. But as we've seen of late, that's simply not the case," said Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the second-ranking Democrat on the panel.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized the bill, saying "the American people didn't ask for congressional Democrats' new effort to undermine the Supreme Court. They asked for a weak economy and a beleaguered America to be fixed first."
Bill responds to reported ethics concerns about Justices Thomas and Alito
The Democratic-led effort to reform Supreme Court justices' ethics standards has grown in recent months, as reports of cash gifts and secret hospitality given to Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito by influential conservative donors raised an outcry for a code of conduct. "With this bill, we're sending a clear message to the Supreme Court: it's time for the Court to establish clear ethical standards," Durbin said.
Justices are currently summoned only by the statutory requirements set out in 28 U.S. Code § 455. The proposed bill would go beyond this to require a code governing conduct away from the bench as well.
In addition to Justice Thomas declining to recuse from cases involving a top donor, Alito declined similar requests. Their critics cite extensive study documenting the heart of bias from connections they must uphold to donors and amici. A 2020 study in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies found clear evidence of a political favor from Justices from connected parties.
GOP fears infringement on Supreme Court's independence
Republican critics have argued the bill doesn't specify precisely what actions would trigger investigations or who would oversee investigations into impropriety.
"This is a bill that doesn't say what would trigger a misconduct investigation. It doesn't say who is in charge of investigating without regard to fairness or avoiding political bias," Ted Cruz (R-TX) said.
National groups like the Concord Coalition have also warned against "the state interfering in federal matters" and that the bill's language can stifle the court's independence.
But Democrats say the bill leaves it to the court to define the specifics of what triggers an investigation and who oversees them - it merely assigns the task to be handled.
Next steps in the larger bill's fate in the Senate
The measure now goes before the full Senate for a voice vote on the floor in September, yet given its party-line approval, it is unlikely to achieve the 60 votes needed to overcome the procedural hurdle of a filibuster.
President Biden urged Senate passage of the legislation in a speech on July 20. He says he would sign it, but at least 10 GOP votes are needed to break the filibuster and advance the bill.
If done, Republicans are expected to argue the Supreme Court should instead devise its own code, citing a clause in the Judiciary Act of 1869 which states the Code of Conduct applies only to federal judges (i.e. not Supreme Court justices).
Already, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to engage with Democrats' efforts to bring restrictions to the top court's ethical guidelines. In a statement in January, Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement that the Court had worked to "determine whether any steps are needed to formalize practices about recusal and ethics advice," but did not endorse a code of conduct.
Why ethics reforms matter
The push to impose a written code of conduct to the Supreme Court has been in the works for years - gaining urgency since a 2010 PRO BONO report said 83% of federal judges support adoption, with only 9% of Supreme Court justices voting for or against introducing a code.
Proponents argue a code of conduct will restore public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court operates under statutes barring certain conduct (like financial gain from the judicial position or improper involvement in political activity) but lacks a detailed ethos meant to enhance integrity.
Last year, Supreme Court Justices empty-handedly rejected similar reform efforts, with Roberts writing at the time that "each justice has an independent obligation under his or her own oath to maintain a proper ethical standard of behavior".
For the Court, events of the last 18 months have underscored how vulnerable it may be to criticism that it is slipping from the neutral, dispassionate body outlined in the Constitution. In September of 2022, Justices Thomas and Alito were tied to a donor who took them along with a co-justice to an anniversary party at a hotel owned by the donor.
And the court has faced criticism for failing to impose a code, Washington had honed its ethics rules in 2010.
Whitehouse and other ethics reform backers say the problems their bill addresses aren't part of a coordinated effort, but they're seen through the same lens as Supreme Court's recent controversies over the release of an opinion suggesting Roe was wrongly decided.