HR-9688-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Jamie Raskin (D-MD)
What it does
This bill would prohibit federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, from accepting gifts worth more than $50 in a single instance or $100 total per year from any one source, unless an exception applies. Exceptions cover items like fair-market purchases, gifts from relatives or other judges, honorary degrees, widely available benefits, certain travel reimbursements for legal seminars, and personal hospitality from non-prohibited individuals. It creates a referral and enforcement process through the Judicial Conference, Attorney General, and civil/criminal penalties, and requires the Supreme Court and Judicial Conference to issue implementing regulations within 180 days.
Who benefits
The public and litigants who benefit from increased transparency and reduced appearance of judicial bias; watchdog and ethics organizations pushing for court accountability; Congress, which gains a statutory tool to enforce judicial ethics standards beyond the Court's own voluntary code.
Who is hurt
Federal judges and Supreme Court justices who currently accept gifts, travel, or hospitality above these thresholds would need to change their conduct or forgo such benefits; wealthy individuals, organizations, and institutions that have historically provided gifts or sponsored travel to judges; judges could face civil or criminal liability for violations, and the judiciary as an institution may see this as an intrusion on its independence.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that recent reporting on undisclosed gifts and travel accepted by Supreme Court justices—including luxury trips and real estate transactions—revealed gaps in existing ethics rules that the Court's own 2023 voluntary code did not adequately close. They contend that codifying enforceable gift limits with civil and criminal penalties, modeled on existing executive branch ethics statutes, is necessary to maintain public confidence in judicial impartiality, especially since federal judges currently lack a binding, congressionally enforceable gift rule.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress imposing detailed conduct rules and criminal penalties on judges, including Supreme Court justices, raises separation-of-powers concerns by allowing the legislative and executive branches to regulate and prosecute members of a coequal branch for conduct traditionally governed by internal judicial rules. They contend the bill could be used selectively to intimidate or pressure judges over lawful, disclosed activities like teaching honoraria or academic travel, chilling legitimate professional engagement.
Constitutional context
This bill implicates Article III's structural protections for judicial independence and the separation of powers, since Congress would be imposing binding conduct rules with criminal penalties on judges and justices whose ethics have traditionally been self-governed; no single landmark case directly controls congressional authority to regulate judicial ethics, though the issue touches the same separation-of-powers principles underlying cases like Morrison v. Olson (1988) on inter-branch authority.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to set and enforce (via the Attorney General and federal courts) binding ethics rules on the judicial branch, with the judiciary retaining a role through Judicial Conference referrals and the Chief Justice's or chief judges' waiver authority for certain reimbursements.
Historical precedent
Congress has long imposed gift and ethics restrictions on executive branch officials and rank-and-file federal judges through existing ethics-in-government statutes, but this bill would extend enforceable, penalty-backed gift limits explicitly to Supreme Court justices for the first time.