A closer look at the newly released code and its implications
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently released its first-ever code of conduct for Justices, aiming to address concerns raised about their ethical conduct. This move comes in response to public scrutiny over undisclosed gifts received by Justice Clarence Thomas and allegations of failure to recuse themselves from cases involving personal connections. The code, however, appears to defend the Justices’ actions rather than provide a framework for ethical behavior. In this article, we delve into the details of the code, its potential implications, and the controversies surrounding it.
A Defense Brief in the Guise of a Code
The code of conduct issued by the Supreme Court serves as a defense brief, arguing against the existence of any ethical breaches by the Justices. It fails to address past concerns and instead attempts to dismiss them. The public’s perception of what constitutes ethical conduct for Supreme Court Justices is challenged through this code.
The Canons and Extrajudicial Activities
The code is organized into five “Canons,” with Canon 4 specifically outlining a long list of extrajudicial activities that Justices are not only allowed but even encouraged to engage in without ethical qualms. This provision raises questions about the Justices’ attendance at fundraising events, such as Justice Thomas’s multiple appearances at Koch-network events, which may now be deemed permissible under the code.
Associations with the Federalist Society
The code appears to condone the close associations between Justices and the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization with significant influence on judicial appointments. The code explicitly allows Justices’ participation and membership in nonprofit organizations devoted to the law or the administration of justice, which covers the Federalist Society. This provision has raised concerns about the potential bias and influence of the organization on the Court’s decisions.
The Appearance of Impropriety
The code warns Justices to consider whether their participation or appearance before certain groups would create an appearance of impropriety. However, it establishes by fiat that, in most cases, no such appearance will be created when a Justice speaks to groups associated with educational institutions, bar groups, religious groups, or non-partisan scholarly or cultural groups. This provision raises questions about the impartiality and perceived bias of Justices when speaking at law schools or events affiliated with specific ideological leanings.
Use of Court Resources and Staff
Justices have faced criticism for using Court resources and staff to produce and promote books for which they may receive substantial financial gain. The code permits Justices to engage in activities such as writing books and speaking at events to sell those books, allowing them to use Court resources and staff funded by taxpayers. This provision raises concerns about the potential misuse of public resources for personal gain.
Gift Regulations and Recusal
The code does not introduce new rules on gifts but instead directs Justices to comply with the U.S. Judicial Conference’s regulations. These regulations generally allow Justices to receive expensive gifts as long as they disclose them and the giver does not have business before the Court. The code also addresses concerns about recusal, stating that a Justice should disqualify themselves if they know that their spouse’s interest could be substantially affected by the outcome of a proceeding. However, the high standard of “knowing” raises questions about the threshold for recusal.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s release of a code of conduct for Justices has raised more questions than it has answered. Rather than addressing past ethical concerns, the code seems to defend the actions of the Justices. The provisions regarding extrajudicial activities, associations with organizations like the Federalist Society, and the use of Court resources and staff have sparked controversy and raised concerns about the perceived impartiality and ethical conduct of the Justices. As the public continues to scrutinize the actions of the Supreme Court, the effectiveness and impact of this code of conduct remain to be seen.
Leave a Reply