Skip to content

JUD-009 — Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for Supreme Court ethics, disclosure, complaint-review, and recusal procedures, to establish safeguards for proceedings involving an appointing President, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.”

SEC. 2. SUPREME COURT CODE OF CONDUCT AND PUBLIC ACCESS.

(a) Code of conduct.—Chapter 16 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

§ 365. Code of conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court

(a) The Supreme Court of the United States shall maintain and publish a code of conduct governing the Justices of the Supreme Court.

(b) Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Court shall publish the code after public notice and opportunity for comment using the procedures applicable under section 2071(b), without regard to the exception in that subsection for the Supreme Court. The Court may amend the code only after the same public process, except for a technical or emergency amendment that is published with a written explanation and submitted for public comment within 60 days.

(c) The code shall address, at minimum, integrity and independence; impropriety and its appearance; impartial and diligent performance of judicial duties; disqualification; gifts, reimbursements, outside income, and financial interests; extrajudicial activity; political activity; and compliance with applicable Federal law.

§ 366. Public access to ethics materials

The Supreme Court shall publish in a searchable and downloadable format the code of conduct, related rules and resolutions, complaint procedures, recusal procedures, public findings and reports required by this chapter, and annual aggregate compliance data.

(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 16 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding items for sections 365 and 366.

SEC. 3. COMPLAINTS CONCERNING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

(a) In general.—Chapter 16 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by section 2, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

§ 367. Complaints concerning Justices

(a) Receipt and screening.—Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Supreme Court shall establish procedures under which a person may submit, or the Court may identify, a complaint alleging that a Justice violated the code issued under section 365, section 455, or another applicable provision of Federal law.

(b) Required showing.—A complaint submitted by a person shall contain the complainant's signature and contact information, a concise statement of specific facts, identification of reasonably available supporting material, and a sworn affirmation that the allegations have a reasonable factual basis. A complaint identified by the Court shall contain a written statement of the specific facts and reasonably available supporting material on which it is based.

(c) Administrative intake.—The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall determine whether a complaint contains the information required by subsection (b), permit one reasonable opportunity to cure an omission in a complaint submitted by a person, and transmit each facially complete complaint to a judicial investigation panel. The Clerk may not decide the merits of a complaint.

(d) Judicial investigation panel.—Each transmitted complaint shall be assigned to five judges selected at random from among the chief judges of the United States courts of appeals. A selected judge with a disqualifying conflict shall be replaced through the same random method. Three judges constitute a quorum, and the panel shall act by majority vote of the participating judges.

(e) Screening, authority, and duties.—The panel shall dismiss a complaint that is facially insufficient, repetitive, harassing, knowingly false, frivolous, or based only on disagreement with a judgment, vote, opinion, legal interpretation, or ordinary case-management decision. For any other complaint, the panel may investigate, receive evidence, take sworn testimony, issue subpoenas, protect privileged or sensitive material, and employ necessary staff. The panel shall provide the affected Justice notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The panel may apply to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce a subpoena, subject to applicable privileges and protection of judicial deliberations.

(f) Disposition and response.—The panel shall issue advisory findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court. Recommendations may include dismissal, corrective disclosure, recusal, changes to Court rules or procedures, referral to a body possessing lawful authority, or another response within the Court's constitutional authority. The panel may not remove a Justice, reduce compensation, revise a judgment, or direct the result of a case. Not later than 90 days after receiving a recommendation other than dismissal, the Supreme Court, without participation by the affected Justice, shall publish a response stating the action taken or explaining why no action was taken.

(g) Publication.—A report recommending action other than dismissal shall be published within 30 days after its presentation to the Supreme Court, subject to redaction of classified information, judicial deliberations, protected personal information, and material whose disclosure would materially prejudice a pending proceeding. Dismissals shall be reported in aggregate and may be published individually when necessary to explain an important rule or protect public confidence.

(h) Confidentiality and records.—The Supreme Court shall prescribe rules governing secure records, complainant and witness protection, access by the affected Justice, lawful referral, preservation, and eventual disposition of nonpublic complaint material. Those rules may not prevent publication required by subsection (g).

(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 16 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding an item for section 367.

SEC. 4. GIFTS, DISCLOSURES, AND CONFLICT INFORMATION.

(a) Minimum standards.—Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Counselor to the Chief Justice, with the approval of the Chief Justice, shall establish rules governing acceptance and disclosure of gifts, income, travel, lodging, hospitality, and reimbursements received by a Justice or a law clerk to a Justice. The rules may not be less protective than the generally applicable requirements of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and applicable Judicial Conference regulations.

(b) Public availability.—Required reports, corrections, and explanatory statements shall be made publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format, subject to lawful redaction for security and protected personal information.

(c) Party and amicus disclosures.—The Supreme Court shall prescribe rules requiring a party or amicus to identify material gifts, income, reimbursements, financial relationships, or nomination-related expenditures involving a participating Justice when the information is known after reasonable inquiry and is relevant to disqualification under section 455.

(d) Amicus funding.—The rules shall require an amicus curiae to identify persons that materially funded the preparation or submission of the brief and substantial noncommercial funders whose interests may reasonably bear on the proceeding, with thresholds and exceptions sufficient to protect ordinary membership organizations and routine commercial transactions.

SEC. 5. DISQUALIFICATION PROCEDURES.

(a) Duty to disclose potential grounds.—Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end:

“(g) If a justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge learns of a condition that could reasonably require disqualification under this section, the justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge shall promptly notify the parties, subject to lawful protection of classified, privileged, sealed, or sensitive information.”.

(b) Written explanations.—Not later than 1 year after enactment, the rules of the Supreme Court and each court whose judicial officers are subject to section 455 shall require timely public notice of a disqualification or a ruling on a contested motion to disqualify and a written explanation sufficient to identify the controlling ground, subject to lawful redaction.

(c) Review of Supreme Court motions.—Chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

§ 1660. Review of motions to disqualify a Justice

(a) A party may file a timely motion to disqualify a Justice under Federal law. The motion shall be accompanied by counsel's certificate of good faith, or an equivalent certificate by an unrepresented party, and an affidavit stating facts sufficient to support disqualification.

(b) The challenged Justice shall grant the motion or promptly certify it to the remaining Justices. The challenged Justice may submit a written response but may not participate in deciding the motion.

(c) The remaining participating Justices shall decide the motion by majority vote and issue a written disposition. An equally divided vote denies the motion without precedential effect.

(d) Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Supreme Court shall prescribe rules for expedited consideration, emergency proceedings, requests involving more than one Justice, repetitive or successive motions, protection of sensitive information, and any stay necessary to preserve meaningful review without permitting tactical delay.

(e) Nothing in this section eliminates the rule of necessity. Any reliance on that rule shall be explained in writing.

(d) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding an item for section 1660.

SEC. 6. APPOINTER-PRESIDENT RECUSAL.

(a) In general.—Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by section 5, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

“(h) Appointer-President recusal.—

“(1) Definitions.—In this subsection:

“(A) The term ‘covered judicial officer’ means a justice or judge of the United States who was nominated by a President to the office in which the justice or judge is serving.

“(B) The term ‘appointing President’ means the President who nominated the covered judicial officer to that office.

“(C) The term ‘personal-interest proceeding’ means a proceeding in which the appointing President is a criminal defendant, an individual-capacity party, or a person whose own nonofficial liberty, property, financial interest, or legal right or obligation is directly and substantially at issue.

“(D) The term ‘core presidential-authority proceeding’ means a proceeding that is not a personal-interest proceeding and materially concerns the scope, validity, or exercise of the appointing President's own constitutional or statutory authority; immunity or privilege claimed in a presidential capacity; presidential-records responsibilities; election-related eligibility or status; or compliance with a legal command directed specifically to that President.

“(E) The term ‘broader official-capacity proceeding’ means a proceeding in which the appointing President is named in an official capacity but that is not covered by subparagraph (C) or (D).

“(2) Personal-interest proceedings.—A covered judicial officer shall be disqualified from a personal-interest proceeding involving the appointing President unless the rule of necessity applies.

“(3) Core presidential-authority proceedings.—A covered judicial officer shall be disqualified from a core presidential-authority proceeding involving the appointing President unless the rule of necessity applies.

“(4) Broader official-capacity proceedings.—The appointing relationship alone does not require disqualification from a broader official-capacity proceeding. Upon timely motion, the covered judicial officer shall issue written findings addressing whether the proceeding materially adjudicates the appointing President's own legal interests and whether impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

“(5) Anti-gamesmanship.—A party may not obtain disqualification solely by naming the President when complete relief is available against the United States, an agency, or a subordinate officer and the proceeding does not materially concern the President's own legal interests.

“(6) Reassignment.—A proceeding subject to mandatory disqualification shall be reassigned through ordinary neutral procedures. The reassignment authority shall avoid assigning another covered judicial officer subject to the same mandatory ground when reasonably practicable.

“(7) No waiver.—A mandatory disqualification under paragraph (2) or (3) may not be waived under subsection (e).

“(8) No inference of bias.—Disqualification under this subsection is not a finding of actual bias, misconduct, or lack of integrity.

“(9) Relationship to other law.—This subsection supplements and does not limit another ground for disqualification.”.

(b) Effective date and application.—The amendment made by subsection (a) takes effect 180 days after enactment and applies to a proceeding commenced on or after that date and to further proceedings in a matter then pending. It does not reopen a final judgment. Not later than the effective date, the Judicial Conference and each affected court shall ensure that neutral reassignment procedures are available.

SEC. 7. REPORTS, ADMINISTRATION, AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) The Director of the Federal Judicial Center shall study compliance with sections 144 and 455 of title 28 and report to Congress not later than 18 months after enactment and every two years thereafter.

(b) Beginning with the first full calendar year after the procedures under section 367 of title 28, United States Code, take effect, the Supreme Court shall publish an annual report stating the number and general disposition of complaints, contested recusal motions, corrective disclosures, and rule changes under this Act without identifying complainants or disclosing protected information except as otherwise required.

(c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to administer this Act, including panel staff, secure records systems, disclosure administration, and Federal Judicial Center studies.

SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY.

(a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to—

  1. authorize Congress or an executive officer to direct the outcome of a case, revise a judgment, or supervise judicial deliberations;
  2. alter the number of Justices of the Supreme Court;
  3. impose a term or age limit on a Justice or judge;
  4. create a private cause of action for damages against a Justice or judge; or
  5. treat disagreement with a judicial decision as evidence of misconduct.

(b) If any provision or application of this Act is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected. Sections 2 through 7, and the paragraphs of section 455(h), are intended to operate independently to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Budgetary Impact Statement

The Act would require recurring administrative funding for complaint screening, panel investigations, disclosure systems, public reporting, and Federal Judicial Center studies. It authorizes such sums as may be necessary rather than supplying an unsupported project estimate.

Note: Preliminary ARRP assessment only; not a CBO, OMB, agency, or legislative-counsel score.

Drafting Notes

  • Sections 2 through 5 and 7 are adapted substantially from the structure of S. 1814 and H.R. 3513, introduced in the 119th Congress. Section 6 preserves ARRP's independently developed appointer-president recusal component.
  • The draft uses a judicial investigation panel that makes findings and recommendations; it does not give Congress or the executive branch authority to discipline Justices or alter decisions.
  • A July 2026 internal project review retained review by the remaining Justices because it avoids placing final Supreme Court recusal authority in judges of an inferior court. Qualified external review should test that choice, the complaint panel's advisory role, and the appointer-president rule's administrability.
  • Legislative counsel should verify chapter and subsection numbering, conforming amendments, interaction with sections 351 through 364, 677, 1651 through 1659, and 2071 of title 28, Ethics in Government Act definitions, subpoena enforcement, confidentiality, and appropriations language.

Source Notes