Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation on Thursday that would force the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code for the first time in history.
The committee voted along party lines to approve Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-Rhode Island) Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act, which is aimed at reining in corruption among justices in a time when new Supreme Court scandals are being uncovered nearly every week.
Before the vote on Thursday, Whitehouse said that legislation like the SCERT Act is “overdue.”
“The Supreme Court has been captured by special interests,” Whitehouse said. “We are here because the highest court in the land has the lowest standard of ethics anywhere in the federal government.”
If passed, the bill would place stricter requirements around disclosing gifts and travel, especially when they involve people tied to parties with business before the Court. It would also tighten rules around recusals from cases when a justice may have a potential conflict of interest.
Supreme Court ethics are indeed in crisis. In the past months, reporters have uncovered that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have both accepted luxury gifts and trips from wealthy conservatives worth hundreds of thousands of dollars that the justices never reported. Further, both justices have not recused themselves from cases involving their donors.
Experts have said that justices have broken multiple disclosure laws in the process — but, because the Supreme Court doesn’t have a binding ethics code or strong punishments for breaking disclosure laws in this way, and because Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to act on the allegations, the justices are seemingly facing zero consequences for their corruption. As a result, public trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low.
Despite this, SCERT isn’t likely to pass the Senate. Republicans have pledged to vote against the bill, effectively killing it. As they have vehemently defended right-wing Supreme Court justices’ right to act with impunity as the Court hands down win after win for the far right, the GOP has dubiously claimed that Congress has no jurisdiction over the Supreme Court — which experts have said is blatantly untrue.
“The court’s financial disclosure requirements are a law passed by Congress. Its recusal requirements are a law passed by Congress. And the body that implements financial disclosure and code of conduct issues is the Judicial Conference — a body created by Congress,” said Whitehouse. “Please, let’s not pretend that Congress can’t make amendments to laws Congress has passed or oversee agencies Congress has created…. Even the Court has demonstrated it does not believe that canard.”
Meanwhile, Republicans have essentially outright said that the reason the party doesn’t actually want to rein in the Supreme Court is because doing so would risk making the Supreme Court less conservative. In committee debate over the bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), the committee’s top Republican, said that SCERT is “a bill to destroy a conservative court.”
Recent polling has found that the majority of the public agree that the Supreme Court is in need of ethics reform. A Navigator Research poll released Tuesday found that 67 percent of Americans support the passage of the SCERT Act, including a majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans. Another poll by YouGov, commissioned by Demand Justice and released this week, found that 59 percent of Americans would be less likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who opposes Supreme Court ethics reform.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.