HR-3513-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Henry Johnson (D-GA)
What it does
This bill would require the Supreme Court to issue a binding code of conduct for justices and would create a formal process for the public to file misconduct complaints, reviewed by a panel of circuit chief judges. It would also expand disqualification (recusal) requirements for all federal judges, create a court-review process for disputed recusal motions, and impose new gift, income, and lobbying-contact disclosure rules on justices, parties, and amicus filers.
Who benefits
The public and litigants who seek more transparency about judicial conflicts of interest; watchdog groups and journalists tracking judicial ethics; parties in cases who could use the new disqualification-review process to challenge a judge's participation; law clerks and lower court staff who would gain clearer disclosure standards.
Who is hurt
Sitting Supreme Court justices, who would face new mandatory disclosure, recusal, and complaint procedures they do not currently operate under; amicus organizations and their funders, who would face new disclosure obligations that could reveal donor identities; lower federal judges, who would face expanded recusal triggers and public notice requirements that could increase litigation over judge assignments and delay some proceedings.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the Supreme Court is currently the only federal court not bound by an enforceable code of conduct, despite reporting on undisclosed gifts and travel from parties with business before the Court. They contend that formal complaint procedures, mandatory disclosure, and a structured recusal-review process would restore public confidence in judicial impartiality without altering any substantive rulings.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress imposing a code of conduct and complaint process on the Supreme Court raises separation-of-powers concerns, since Article III courts have traditionally regulated their own ethics free from legislative direction. They contend that empowering circuit judges to investigate justices and allowing Supreme Court review of a colleague's disqualification could undermine judicial independence and invite politically motivated complaints against justices for unpopular rulings.
Constitutional context
This bill centers on Article III's vesting of judicial power in an independent branch and the separation of powers among the three branches, rather than on equal protection or civil rights doctrine; no single landmark case squarely governs Congress's authority to impose ethics codes on the Supreme Court, since the issue has not been directly adjudicated. Article I gives Congress power to structure the lower federal courts, but its authority to regulate the Supreme Court's internal conduct rules is constitutionally contested.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain significant new oversight authority over judicial conduct and disclosure, shifting power that has traditionally rested with the judiciary's self-governance, with courts retaining the ability to challenge the law's validity under separation-of-powers principles.
Historical precedent
Congress has long imposed codes of conduct and financial disclosure requirements on lower federal judges through the Judicial Conference and the Ethics in Government Act, but no comparable binding code of conduct or complaint process has previously been enacted for Supreme Court justices specifically.