www.politico.com Open in urlscan Pro
2606:4700:4400::6812:29fb  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.politico.com/search

<form class="slide-search__form" action="https://www.politico.com/search" method="get">
  <input class="slide-search__input" type="search" name="q" id="searchTerm" aria-label="Search for any story" placeholder="Enter search term...">
  <button class="slide-search__run" type="submit" aria-label="Start search"><b class="bt-icon bt-icon--search"></b><span class="icon-text">Search</span></button>
  <button class="slide-search__close" id="search-close" type="button"><b class="bt-icon bt-icon--close" aria-label="Close Search"></b></button>
</form>

Text Content

Skip to Main Content


POLITICO POLITICO LOGO

 * Congress
 * Pro
 * E&E News
 * Search
   Search


WASHINGTON & POLITICS

 * Congress
 * White House
 * Elections
 * Legal
 * Magazine
 * Foreign Affairs


2024 ELECTIONS

 * News
 * GOP Candidate Tracker


STATE POLITICS & POLICY

 * California
 * Florida
 * New Jersey
 * New York


GLOBAL POLITICS & POLICY

 * Brussels
 * Canada
 * United Kingdom


POLICY NEWS

 * Agriculture
 * Cannabis
 * Cybersecurity
 * Defense
 * Education
 * Energy & Environment
 * Finance & Tax
 * Health Care
 * Immigration
 * Labor
 * Sustainability
 * Technology
 * Trade
 * Transportation


NEWSLETTERS

 * Playbook
 * Playbook PM
 * West Wing Playbook
 * POLITICO Nightly
 * POLITICO Weekend
 * The Recast
 * Huddle
 * All Newsletters


COLUMNISTS

 * Alex Burns
 * John Harris
 * Jonathan Martin
 * Michael Schaffer
 * Jack Shafer
 * Rich Lowry


SERIES & MORE

 * Breaking News Alerts
 * Podcasts
 * Video
 * The Fifty
 * Women Rule
 * Matt Wuerker Cartoons
 * Cartoon Carousel


POLITICO LIVE

 * Upcoming Events
 * Previous Events


FOLLOW US

 * Twitter
 * Instagram
 * Facebook

 * My Account
 * Log In Log Out



Legal


6 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT’S NEW ETHICS CODE

The court’s adoption of a formal code of conduct is a first — but it’s unlikely
to be a transformation.



The high court's new ethics code has all the makings of a compromise engineered
by the chief justice. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP

By Josh Gerstein

11/13/2023 07:38 PM EST

 * 
 * 

 * * Link Copied
 * * 
   * 
   * 

For years, the Supreme Court has publicly resisted the adoption of a formal
ethics code, even while seriously debating the idea behind the scenes. So, the
court’s embrace of an official code on Monday came as something of a surprise.

Its content, however, was hardly surprising.



Laid out over five “canons” that span eight pages, the code is written in turgid
legal prose and is accompanied by a one-paragraph introductory statement and a
five-page “commentary.” Signed by all nine justices, it has all the makings of a
compromise engineered by Chief Justice John Roberts, who 12 years ago defended
the court’s lack of a binding code but undoubtedly has been shaken by the
court’s growing crisis of public confidence and Congress’ escalating overtures
at oversight.



Here are six of the biggest loopholes, ambiguities and unresolved questions in
the court’s new code of conduct:


NO NEW BREAKTHROUGHS

While this is the first time in history that the court has formally adopted an
ethics code, the code contains no major breakthroughs, and it’s unlikely to
initiate the sea change in the court’s practices that reform-minded advocates
have pushed for.

For years, the prospect of adopting a code has been quietly under discussion at
the court, but justices were never able to reach consensus on it. The “new” code
announced Monday — as the court itself seemed to acknowledge in its introductory
statement — is largely a repackaging of the court’s previous statements on
ethics, including a compilation released in April as Roberts begged off
testifying before a Senate committee. And even that April announcement was
essentially a summary of various announcements and statements the court had made
to journalists on ethics questions over several decades.


MALCONTENTS ON ALL SIDES

Roberts is known for attempting to steer the court through precarious issues by
forging narrow and unanimous compromises. When he succeeds, his efforts often
seem to please almost no one — and that may again be the case with the ethics
code, at least among those most vocal about ethics issues at the court.

Some on the left, pointing to the lack of any enforcement mechanism, called the
move ineffectual and inadequate on Monday. And on the right, it comes as a
disappointment to commentators who believed adopting any code at all would be an
unwise cave to bad-faith critics of the court’s most conservative justices.

“This unenforceable public relations document serves absolutely no purpose other
than to permit the media to revert to pretending that our unaccountable and
unethical Supreme Court retains legitimacy,” said Jeff Hauser, executive
director of the Revolving Door Project, which scrutinizes ties between corporate
America and the federal government.

Just last week, at a high-profile annual gathering of the conservative
Federalist Society, prominent lawyers — including some allies of the
conservative justices — warned against the high court adopting the kind of code
it did on Monday. Many conservative lawyers said doing so would feed what they
regarded as an unfair frenzy created by the media and Democratic lawmakers.

Share
Video Player is loading.

Play Video
Play
Mute

Current Time 0:00
/
Duration 0:00
Loaded: 0%


Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind liveLIVE
Remaining Time -0:00
 
1x
Playback Rate
 * 2x
 * 1.75x
 * 1.5x
 * 1.25x
 * 1x, selected
 * 0.75x
 * 0.5x

Chapters
 * Chapters

Descriptions
 * descriptions off, selected

Captions
 * captions settings, opens captions settings dialog
 * captions off, selected

Audio Track

Fullscreen

This is a modal window.



Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.

TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaque
Font Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge
StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional
Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall
Caps
Reset restore all settings to the default valuesDone
Close Modal Dialog

End of dialog window.

Close Modal Dialog

This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or
activating the close button.


Close Modal Dialog

This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or
activating the close button.



This is a modal window.


RestartShare

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell, whose law clerks regularly win
clerkships with Justice Clarence Thomas, called an ethics code “a bad idea” at
the FedSoc gathering. “Even if it’s an internal code at the court … that’s going
to be weaponized in some way, as well, against conservative justices,” he said.

One conservative litigator said Monday he thought the code generally struck the
right balance in substance, but suggested the jury remains out on whether it
will do anything to calm critics of the high court.

“The code demonstrates the Supreme Court’s appreciation of its unique
constitutional role,” said David Rivkin, a former lawyer at the White House and
Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. “It
remains to be seen if the merits of the court’s position are going to be
sufficiently recognized to temper down the vitriolic attacks on the court.”


A TWO-STEP ON SPOUSES




Possibly out of deference to Thomas and his wife, Virginia, the new code is
vague about when a spouse’s personal or political activities should prompt a
justice to recuse from a case. And it is silent about how much a justice should
do to suss out such potential conflicts.

Virginia Thomas’ longtime activity as a conservative political activist and
organizer brought unwelcome attention to her husband in the wake of the Jan. 6,
2021 Capitol riot. During the House investigation into that incident and the
broader effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, it emerged
that Ginni Thomas was in contact with the White House in the weeks after the
2020 election, pushing fringe conspiracy theories about foreign interference in
the vote and urging Donald Trump’s aides to keep fighting Joe Biden’s victory in
the vote count.

Despite his wife’s activities, Justice Thomas ruled on a series of
election-related cases in 2020 and 2021, including one case involving Trump’s
attempt to block the release of White House communications about Jan. 6. The
court allowed the records to be released, over a dissent from Thomas.

Last month, Thomas recused himself as the court rejected a petition from one of
his former clerks, John Eastman, seeking to overturn a lower-court ruling that
suggested his work related to the election amounted to plotting a crime. Thomas
did not explain the recusal.

The new code says justices should step aside in most cases when a spouse or
minor child has a financial or “any other interest that could be affected
substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” The policy says “a Justice
should make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial
interests of the Justice’s spouse and minor children residing in the Justice’s
household,” but doesn’t address whether a justice has an obligation to know
enough about his or her spouse’s personal or political activities to keep those
from creating a conflict of interest or appearance of such a conflict.


AN ELASTIC PROHIBITION ON LEAKS




Another provision seems to prohibit leaks by justices about official matters,
although it is written in such a way that it could be read not to put many
limits on what members of the court say to the press or to associates.

“A Justice should not knowingly make public comment on the merits of a matter
pending or impending in any court,” the code says. “A Justice should not
disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any
purpose unrelated to the Justice’s official duties.”

The limits seem pretty elastic in terms of what might constitute public comment.
And almost any comment arguably aimed at improving understanding of the court’s
actions could be seen as related to the job.

The code is silent about the justices’ custom of not discussing their own
deliberations after cases are decided.


‘ACUTE SECURITY CONCERNS’

In the commentary accompanying the ethics code, the court — which has seen an
uptick in threats and even an alleged assassination attempt against Justice
Brett Kavanaugh — referred to the “distinctive security concerns” that the
justices face.

According to the commentary, people on the government payroll can carry out
security-related work and provide “legal, ethics, and other appropriate
assistance to the Justices” in light of those concerns.

The provision, while vague, seems to contend that it’s reasonable for justices
to have their official aides and other staff undertake some duties related to
the justices’ personal lives in order to serve their security needs.


DUCKING THE ALITO-KAGAN FIGHT

As a consensus document, the code and accompanying commentary seek to paper over
some of the rifts that have appeared among the justices on ethics questions in
recent months. The most notable disagreement was Justice Elena Kagan’s rejection
of Justice Samuel Alito’s claim that Congress has no right to set any ethics
rules related to the court.

Kagan pointed out that Congress has long used federal law to set all sorts of
rules for the high court, ranging from when it should convene to what financial
holdings justices are required to report.

However, over a decade ago, Roberts publicly noted that the court has never
ruled on whether the Constitution permits Congress to impose such limits on the
Supreme Court or whether some sorts of restrictions might intrude on the high
court’s constitutional function.

The new code essentially leaves that legal question for another day, saying that
the current crop of justices have agreed to abide by the rules requiring various
reports on the assets and business dealings of justices, but not saying if those
rules are constitutional.

“For some time, all Justices have agreed to comply with the statute governing
financial disclosure, and the undersigned Members of the Court each individually
reaffirm that commitment,” the code says.



 * Filed under:
 * Joe Biden,
 * Joe Biden 2024,
 * Constitution,
 * Elena Kagan,
 * U.S. Supreme Court,
 * Judicial Ethics,
 * Donald Trump,
 * Donald Trump 2024,
 * Samuel Alito,
 * Clarence Thomas,
 * Supreme Court Justices,
 * Virginia Thomas,
 * John Eastman,
 * Legal,
 * Brett Kavanaugh,
 * Jan. 6 Capitol riot


POLITICO
 * 
 * 

 * * Link Copied
 * * 
   * 
   * 



 * About Us
 * Advertising
 * Breaking News Alerts
 * Careers
 * Credit Card Payments
 * Digital Edition
 * FAQ
 * Feedback
 * Headlines
 * Photos
 * POWERJobs
 * Press
 * Print Subscriptions
 * Request A Correction
 * Write For Us
 * RSS
 * Site Map

 * Terms of Service
 * Privacy Policy
 * Do not sell my info
 * Notice to California Residents

© 2023 POLITICO LLC