S. 325Senate118th Congress (2023-2025)In Committee

Supreme Court Ethics Act

AI-Generated Summary

Updated January 20, 2026 at 3:22 AM UTC

The Supreme Court Ethics Act amends Title 28 to require the Judicial Conference to issue a code of conduct for all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, within one year. It creates an Ethics Investigations Counsel for the Supreme Court to enforce that code, investigate complaints, and issue an annual public report. The bill also forces justices to publicly disclose why they recuse themselves or why they reject a party’s request for their disqualification.

Key Provisions

Judicial Conference must adopt a code of conduct for all U.S. judges within one year, added as Section 964 to Title 28.
Supreme Court must appoint an Ethics Investigations Counsel within 90 days of the code’s issuance; the counsel serves a four‑year term and can be removed for cause.
The counsel will set enforcement rules, receive public complaints about potential violations, conduct investigations, and publish an annual public report.
Justices must disclose in the public record the reasons for any self‑recusal in a case.
If a justice denies a party’s motion to disqualify them, the justice must also disclose the reasons for that denial.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

SenateIntro Referral Latest Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Judiciary Committee

February 9, 2023

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

February 9, 2023

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Judiciary Committee

February 9, 2023

Floor Debate

1 member

What members said about S. 325 on the floor

1 Democrat

Sen. Richard J. DurbinD-IL · Jun 6, 2023

Mr. President, there are parts of this letter which I find incredible. We received it late last night. As I mentioned before, Harlan Crow, the Texas billionaire who gave hundreds of thousands of…

Mr. President, there are parts of this letter which I find incredible. We received it late last night.

As I mentioned before, Harlan Crow, the Texas billionaire who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars of undisclosed gifts to this Supreme Court Justice over a period of 20 years, now refuses to tell us anything about what those gifts involved, how much was spent, who was there, what this was all about. He says he can't tell us that because we don't have any authority in Congress over that branch of government--the Supreme Court.

Well, he is wrong about that. It turns out, the ethics laws that we passed in Congress in years gone by have been upheld by other courts and followed by them, but it is only one court in the land that has decided it won't follow

those standards. The highest Court in the land has decided it will have the lowest ethical standards.

It is hard to understand. Here is Harlan Crow, the Texas billionaire, spending all this money on one Supreme Court Justice, saying that we cannot, in Congress, ask hard questions about the ethical standards of the highest Court in the land because it would put undue influence on the Court.

Bottom line: Undue influence is what this is all about. No one should be able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a Senator, a Congressman, or certainly a Supreme Court Justice without full disclosure and compliance with the law.

For the Supreme Court to say that is asking for too much, I think the American people can draw their own conclusions. They have a right to know, if Harlan Crow thinks our passing an ethics code for the Supreme Court would put undue influence on the Court, how does he explain spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on gifts, trips, on yachts, and chartered airplanes for a Supreme Court Justice? Is he not seeking undue influence on the same Court? It is obvious that it is true.

What surprised me after I received this letter--and, once again, was offended by the logic of it, if there is any--at the end of the day, I looked online today to find that this attorney, Michael Bopp, is saying that he made an offer now to meet with the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I read the letter for a third time. And I thought, how did I happen to miss that? Well, it turns out it is the final sentence in the letter. And I would like to read it to you.

Please feel free to have your staff contact me with any

questions concerning this response and to set up a time to

further discuss your requests.

That, I suppose, is the offer to meet. I am not going to turn it down. We are going to meet with him if he wishes to discuss this further.

But before we go any further than that conversation about this committee, let me make a reference to the bottom line in this controversy. Chief Justice John Roberts, the person that this Court is named after, as all Chief Justices are--the Roberts Court has the authority this afternoon, before 5 o'clock, to announce a resolution to resolve this issue once and forever, to make sure that the Court steps away from the sordid affair with the right conclusion. To put a code of ethics in a standard of ethical conduct in place will bring this Court into the same world of reality as the rest of the courts in the United States.

The American people need to have confidence in this Court. And hiding gifts of hundreds of thousands of dollars, not disclosing, and paying no price when they are finally discovered is not the way to convince the American people that the Court is credible.

We are going to continue in the Senate Judiciary Committee to do all that we need to do to get to the bottom of this controversy. The American people have a right to believe in this Court, as they do in this Congress. And we have to do everything under our power to make sure that happens.

I yield the floor.

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in SenateIssued February 9, 2023

118th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 325

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2023

Mr. Murphy (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Luján, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Peters, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Wyden, and Ms. Hirono) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for a code of conduct for justices and judges of the courts of the United States, establish an ethics investigations counsel, and require disclosure of recusals.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Supreme Court Ethics Act.

Code of conduct

(a)

In general

Chapter 57 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

964.

Code of conduct

Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Judicial Conference of the United States shall issue a code of conduct, which applies to each justice and judge of the courts of the United States, except that the code of conduct may include provisions that are applicable only to certain categories of judges or justices.

(b)

Technical and conforming amendment

The table of sections for chapter 57 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after the item related to section 963 the following:

964. Code of conduct.

Establishment of Ethics Investigations Counsel and reporting protocol

(a)

In general

Not later than 90 days after the date on which the Judicial Conference of the United States issues a code of conduct under section 964 of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, the Supreme Court of the United States shall appoint and fix the compensation of an Ethics Investigations Counsel who shall adopt rules providing for the enforcement of the code of conduct, including a process to receive from the public information about potential violations of the code of conduct by justices of the Supreme Court.

(b)

Term

The Ethics Investigation Counsel shall serve a term of 4 years.

(c)

Removal

The Ethics Investigation Counsel may be removed for cause by the Supreme Court of the United States.

(d)

Process

The process shall include the establishment of a method for the submission of the information described in subsection (a) in electronic form.

(e)

Investigations

The Ethics Investigations Counsel appointed under this section shall conduct investigations into potential violations of the code of conduct described in section 964 of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, and other conduct prejudicial to the ethical, effective, and expeditious administration of the business of the Supreme Court of the United States.

(f)

Assistants

The Ethics Investigations Counsel appointed under this section may, with the approval of the Chief Justice of the United States, appoint necessary assistants and fix their compensation.

(g)

Report

The Ethics Investigations Counsel appointed under this section shall issue an annual public report describing the complaints described in subsection (a) and any steps taken to investigate, resolve, or rehabilitate the conduct detailed in the complaint.

Recusal of Justices

(a)

In general

In any case in which a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States disqualifies himself or herself in a proceeding under section 455 of title 28, United States Code, the justice shall disclose in the public record of the proceeding the reasons for the disqualification.

(b)

Denial of motion To disqualify

If a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States denies a motion brought by a party to a proceeding before the Court that the justice should be disqualified in the proceeding under section 455 of title 28, United States Code, the justice shall disclose in the public record of the proceeding the reasons for the denial of the motion.