WASHINGTON—Given recent revelations regarding the political activities of Supreme Court justices and their spouses, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) took to the U.S. Senate floor to highlight the importance of holding Supreme Court justices to the highest ethical standards. Murphy discussed his legislation, the Supreme Court Ethics Act, which would require the Judicial Conference of the United States to create a code of conduct that applies to all federal judges and justices—including those on the Supreme Court.

Murphy emphasized the absurdity that Supreme Court justices are exempt from the code of ethics that applies to every other federal judge: “[E]very federal judge — circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges — every federal judge is bound by a code of ethics in order to safeguard the judiciary’s neutrality and transparency. All federal judges except for nine. The Supreme Court. And it’s not because the Supreme Court is so highly regarded by the American people. In fact, the opposite is true. Trust in the institution’s reputation is in rapid decline right now.”

On the history of Supreme Court justices failing to uphold ethical standards, Murphy said: “Recent revelations surrounding Justice Thomas and his wife’s involvement in the events of January 6th have finally brought attention that those standards we try to uphold during the confirmation process quickly disappear upon confirmation. This isn’t some new phenomenon. We’ve seen justices — both liberal and conservative — promote political fundraisers, speak at partisan events, fail to recuse themselves from cases with pretty clear conflicts of interest. And if the past is prologue, this recent incident that has gained a lot of attention regarding Justice Thomas’s family, it won’t be the last.”

On his legislation, the Supreme Court Ethics Act, Murphy said: “I first introduced a bill that would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics ten years ago, and I’ve reintroduced a version of that bill in every Congress since.  The majority of Americans agree with me — there is absolutely no reason why the Supreme Court shouldn’t be subject to a code of conduct just like every other federal judge... And to be clear, I’m not talking about a code of conduct that’s written by Congress. Instead, my legislation would require the Judicial Conference to create a binding code of conduct that applies to all federal judges and justices, including those on the Supreme Court. It’s a simple step that would improve transparency, enforce accountability, and restore some lost faith in the institution.

Murphy highlighted the danger of the public losing trust in the Court: “And frankly, because of that diminishing faith, it’s in the Court’s interest to do everything possible to help rebuild public confidence. During Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, Justice Kagan put it best. She said, ‘The court’s strength as an institution of American governance depends on people believing it has a certain kind of legitimacy, on people believing it’s not simply an extension of politics, that its decision-making has a kind of integrity to it. If people don’t believe that, they have no reason to accept what the court does.’ Justice Kagan said it well. And right now, that belief is teetering dangerously close to the edge.”

Murphy concluded: “I think my Democratic and Republican colleagues can agree on this: the American people deserve to know that our Supreme Court justices are being held to the highest standards, whether they be justices appointed by Democratic presidents or justices appointed by Republican presidents. It’s not enough for us to just trust the Court any longer to self-enforce a secret, internal code of ethics. The highest court in the land cannot be exempt from the standards we hold every other federal judge to.”

A full transcript of his remarks can be found below:

MURPHY: “The process of confirming a Supreme Court justice is supposed to be lengthy, thoughtful, rigorous. I’m grateful to the presiding officer and to Chairman Durbin for doing it right with Judge Brown Jackson.

“Judge Jackson has answered hours of questions about her judicial philosophy, why she made certain decisions, why she represented certain clients, how her background has shaped her worldview. Nearly every detail of her professional and personal life has been and will continue to be interrogated publicly as she goes through the final stages of this process.

“But a strange thing is going to happen once Judge Jackson finally takes her seat on the Supreme Court. She will, after all this review and scrutiny, become effectively immune from ethics standards.

“Why is that? Because every federal judge — circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges — every federal judge is bound by a code of ethics in order to safeguard the judiciary’s neutrality and transparency. 

“All federal judges except for nine. The Supreme Court.

“And it’s not because the Supreme Court is so highly regarded by the American people.

“In fact, the opposite is true. Trust in the institution’s reputation is in rapid decline right now.

“According to a recent C-SPAN poll, only about 37% of likely voters believe that the Supreme Court acts in a ‘serious and constitutionally sound manner.’

“In a democracy that prides itself on a fair and independent judiciary, that’s unacceptable. It’s worrying, but it’s not surprising. 

“Recent revelations surrounding Justice Thomas and his wife’s involvement in the events of January 6th have finally brought attention that those standards we try to uphold during the confirmation process quickly disappear upon confirmation.

“This isn’t some new phenomenon. We’ve seen justices — both liberal and conservative — promote political fundraisers, speak at partisan events, fail to recuse themselves from cases with pretty clear conflicts of interest.

“And if the past is prologue, this recent incident that has gained a lot of attention regarding Justice Thomas’s family, it won’t be the last. 

“I first introduced a bill that would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics ten years ago, and I’ve reintroduced a version of that bill in every Congress since. 

“The majority of Americans agree with me — there is absolutely no reason why the Supreme Court shouldn’t be subject to a code of conduct just like every other federal judge.

“But the Court disagrees. John Roberts said in 2011 when he was asked about this ‘the Court has had no reason to adopt the Code of Conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance.’

“Well, it has a reason now.

“And to be clear, I’m not talking about a code of conduct that’s written by Congress. Instead, my legislation would require the Judicial Conference to create a binding code of conduct that applies to all federal judges and justices, including those on the Supreme Court.

“It’s a simple step that would improve transparency, enforce accountability, and restore some lost faith in the institution.

“And frankly, because of that diminishing faith, it’s in the Court’s interest to do everything possible to help rebuild public confidence. 

“During Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, Justice Kagan put it best. She said, ‘The court’s strength as an institution of American governance depends on people believing it has a certain kind of legitimacy, on people believing it’s not simply an extension of politics, that its decision-making has a kind of integrity to it. If people don’t believe that, they have no reason to accept what the court does.’ Justice Kagan said it well.

“And right now, that belief is teetering dangerously close to the edge. The spouse of a Supreme Court justice was involved in an effort to organize a coup — an overthrow of the democratically elected President of the United States. That is extraordinary. That is not normal. It should not be treated as just another flavor of legitimate political action.

“And the fact that there is no clear binding code of conduct that addresses this kind of behavior, and no clear standards of recusal for Supreme Court Justices that the American public can see and trust, is just unacceptable.

“I think my Democratic and Republican colleagues can agree on this: the American people deserve to know that our Supreme Court justices are being held to the highest standards, whether they be justices appointed by Democratic presidents or justices appointed by Republican presidents.

“It’s not enough for us to just trust the Court any longer to self-enforce a secret, internal code of ethics. The highest court in the land cannot be exempt from the standards we hold every other federal judge to.

“I'm glad that this piece of legislation has gained additional cosponsors just over the course of the last week. I hope that it eventually becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I'd urge my colleagues to join me in holding the Court to account.”

 

###