Legal News

Does the Supreme Court Need a Code of Ethics?

By Ashby Jones

Three questions, LBers: First, does the Supreme Court need a code of ethics?

If so, should Congress be the body that puts it together?

Finally — and perhaps most importantly — is Congress actually empowered to make such a move?

The questions, which a week ago might have seemed purely academic, aren’t anymore.

A group of more than 100 law professors on Wednesday asked Congress to create an ethical code of conduct for the Supreme Court, mostly, it seems, to clarify when the justices should recuse themselves from individual cases. Click here for the Washington Post story; here for the letter.

According to the Post:

The letter, to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, comes after recent controversies involving travel and appearances at political events by several Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Rep. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.) said he plans to introduce legislation that addresses the issue.

Thomas and Scalia have been criticized by a public interest group for attending private political meetings sponsored in January 2007 and 2008 by David and Charles Koch, conservative billionaires who made large contributions during last year’s election and have financially backed the tea party movement.

Precisely what happened at those meetings remains unclear, but neither of the justices’ routine financial disclosures mentioned that the Kochs had organized the events. Supporters of reform say that would change if the same ethics rules that applied to lesser judges were applied to the Supreme Court.

Click here for a recent LB post on the Koch/Supreme Court situation.

But here’s the thing: It’s not altogether clear that Congress can create a law of ethics for the supreme nine. As the WaPo writes, “decisions to recuse . . . by tradition have been left up to the individual justices at the center of any complaint, contrary to the practice on most state supreme courts.”

The professors said in their letter to the committees that their goal is not to second-guess the activities of any individual judge but to create “mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.” An influential British judge declared in the 17th century that “no man may be a judge in his own case,” the letter said, but “inexplicably we still allow Supreme Court justices to be the sole judge of themselves on recusal issues.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on February 25, 2011 (boomark / email).