In an effort to hold the U.S. Supreme Court accountable to the American people, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) introduced his Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act. The bill will require justices of the Supreme Court to adopt and follow a code of ethics, creates an accountability mechanism for these ethics by establishing advisory review by appellate court judges, places transparency standards on gifts and travel, codifies recusal standards, and requires the court to disclose lobbying and dark money interests before it.

“This bill is a long time coming,” said Rep. Johnson, ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts. “Many of these changes have been put before Congress in one form or another for the past decade or more. We are seeing the effects of our inaction. The word unprecedented is starting to lose its meaning as we see more and more questionable behavior from justices. And public trust and confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. By mandating that the Supreme Court develop and adopt a code of ethics and establishing common-sense transparency and recusal standards, this bill would help restore the Court’s reputation and reinforce that none of us — not even Supreme Court Justices — are above the law.”

Should Congress pass H.R. 926, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act?

Under the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, there will be:

• Code of conduct: the Supreme Court must adopt a code of conduct for itself after an opportunity for public comment.
• Minimum gift/travel/income disclosure rules: the Justices must adhere to—at minimum—the same gift/travel/income disclosure standards as Members of Congress.
• The Supreme Court must publish on its website all of its ethics rules and procedures, including its code of conduct.
• An investigative board composed of the chief judges of each circuit to review complaints submitted against Supreme Court justices.
• Closure of the loophole in current law that requires complaints against judges to be dismissed once those judges are elevated to the Supreme Court.

Recusal reforms aimed at the recent ethics scandals:

Lobbying on the judge or justice’s behalf: Recusal would be required if a party or affiliate lobbied or spent substantial funds to get the justice/judge confirmed.

Giving the judge or justice income, gifts, or reimbursements: Recusal would be required if the justice/judge or spouse or minor child or a privately held entity under their control received income/gifts/reimbursements from a party or affiliate in the case within 6 years of the judge being assigned to the case.

Duty to know: Imposes a clear duty for the judge/justice to know their and their family’s financial interests could be substantially affected by a case before them.

Duty to notify: Requires the judge/justice to inform the parties of any circumstances that could reasonably require recusal.

Review by other justices and judges: Ensures that the full Court can protect the integrity of its own proceedings by creating a path for full-Court consideration of a recusal motion. For lower courts, ensures that recusal motions can be considered by a randomly selected panel drawn from across the judiciary.

Public notice: Requires short explanations of judges’ recusal decisions to be posted online.

Clarifies that private or sensitive information may be redacted from public explanations of recusal decisions.

Clarifies that judges who are the subject of motions to recuse can offer their views on recusal review panels but may not participate on those panels.

Disclosure requirements:

Disclosure of lobbying, gifts, and payments by parties: Requires the Court to issue rules requiring all parties and amici to list any lobbying or substantial expenditures in support of the justice’s nomination, confirmation, or appointment; and any gifts, income, or reimbursements made to the justices within two years of the start of the proceeding.

Dark money amicus disclosure: Requires parties that file amicus briefs to disclose their major sources of funding and authorizes the courts to strike amicus briefs that would require a judge to recuse.