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 and Supreme Court justices from accepting gifts worth more than $50 per instance or more than $100 in total from any single source in a calendar year. It would establish specific exceptions — including gifts from relatives, other judges, honorary degrees from educational institutions, and reimbursement for legal seminars up to $2,000 (or more with a waiver from a chief judge). The bill would require the Supreme Court and the Judicial Conference to issue implementing regulations within 180 days and would authorize the Attorney General to bring civil or criminal penalties against violators.
Who benefits
Litigants and parties who appear before federal courts, who would have greater assurance that judges have not received gifts from opposing interests. The general public, which would gain a statutory enforcement mechanism for judicial gift limits. Journalists and watchdog organizations that investigate judicial ethics, who would have a clearer legal standard to reference. Judges who currently face ambiguous ethics guidance and would receive a clear, enforceable rule. Lower-income litigants and those without access to well-funded networks, who may benefit from reduced perception of favoritism toward wealthy donors.
Who is hurt
Federal judges and Supreme Court justices, who would face new legal restrictions and potential criminal liability for accepting gifts that are currently permitted under existing, more permissive ethics guidance. Organizations that host legal education seminars — particularly those funded by ideological or industry groups — whose ability to invite judges as attendees would be curtailed. Wealthy individuals and entities accustomed to providing hospitality to judges through travel, lodging, or entertainment. Law schools and bar associations that provide honorary degrees with associated travel benefits, though the bill does carve out a narrow exception for purely educational-institution-funded events.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that investigative reporting — including ProPublica's 2023 series — documented that Supreme Court justices accepted millions of dollars in undisclosed travel, lodging, and gifts from wealthy individuals with interests before the Court, and that existing ethics rules lacked enforceable limits. They contend that the $50/$100 thresholds mirror the gift limits already applied to members of Congress and executive branch officials under the Ethics in Government Act, and that applying the same standard to the judiciary simply closes a long-standing gap in federal ethics law that undermines public confidence in the courts.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress imposing binding gift limits and criminal penalties on the judiciary raises serious separation of powers concerns, since the Constitution establishes the judicial branch as a co-equal institution and the Supreme Court has historically governed its own conduct. They contend that the bill's narrow exceptions — particularly the $2,000 cap on seminar reimbursements — could chill legitimate judicial education and that the enforcement mechanism, routing referrals through the Attorney General (an executive branch official), gives the executive branch an unprecedented lever of pressure over sitting judges, potentially threatening judicial independence.