On Wednesday, December 4, 2024, nonprofit organization Fix the Court published an article outlining its perspective on implementing enforceable ethics at the Supreme Court of the United States. The organization presents a six-step framework illustrating how this could function in practice, aiming to enhance accountability and transparency among justices.
Step 1 involves the Chief Justice appointing a judicial council made up of seven senior judges and additional staff. This council would be responsible for receiving and reviewing complaints against justices. Fix the Court explains that the selection of seven judges aligns with existing judicial councils at the circuit level, and senior judges are preferred to avoid potential conflicts of interest, as they are not eligible for future appointments to the Supreme Court.
Step 2 allows any individual to submit complaints alleging that a justice has violated their oath, legal obligations, or ethical standards, or indicating cognitive incapacity affecting a justice’s ability to perform their duties. This provision reflects the language of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which permits complaints from “any person.” The article suggests that justices should also have the ability to initiate complaints, mirroring current judicial practices.
In Step 3, the council would have the authority to dismiss complaints deemed unsubstantiated or irrelevant. Fix the Court anticipates that many complaints may stem from vexatious litigants or individuals dissatisfied with court decisions. Therefore, council staff would be tasked with filtering these complaints to focus on those with legitimate merit.
Step 4 addresses situations where a complaint is found to have merit but the justice has taken corrective action before the council’s review. For example, if a justice amends a disclosure following a complaint about a minor oversight, such as failing to report travel reimbursement, the council might consider the issue resolved.
If a complaint remains valid without immediate corrective action, Step 5 enables the council to initiate an investigation. This process could include holding hearings, taking sworn testimony, and issuing subpoenas. The council could collaborate with external firms if necessary and maintain communication with the complainant and the subject justice throughout the investigation. If new evidence arises during the inquiry, it will be incorporated into the investigation as needed.
Upon concluding an investigation, Step 6 requires the council to produce a comprehensive report summarizing its findings and recommending appropriate actions. Possible actions could include public or private admonishments, recusal from ongoing cases, reimbursement for gifts or trips, ethics training, or, in serious cases, recommending a justice’s resignation.
While the council can recommend actions, it does not hold the authority to enforce them. However, it is expected that justices would comply with the council’s recommendations if serious ethical breaches are confirmed. Additionally, if a justice refuses to follow through on recommended actions, Congress could require them to publicly justify their decisions.
The article also discusses the potential for impeachment. If necessary, the judicial council could send its investigatory findings to the House of Representatives, which has the authority to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Source: Fix the Court
