The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to vote soon on Supreme Court ethics reform legislation, its chairman announced on July 6.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a press release: “The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. That’s why, as I previously announced, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up Supreme Court ethics reform legislation when the Senate returns after the July 4th recess.”
“An announcement on the timing of this vote will be made early next week,” Mr. Durbin added.
Republicans have suggested that Democrats only want to move against the Court because its six-member conservative-leaning majority has been rendering decisions they find objectionable.
At a May 2 hearing, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, an appointee of President George W. Bush, told lawmakers that Democrats’ concerns about the ethics of the Supreme Court were overblown.
“It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the public is being asked to hallucinate misconduct so as to undermine the authority of justices who issue rulings with which these critics disagree, and thus to undermine the authority of the rulings themselves,” Mr. Mukasey said.
The nation’s highest court adopted a conservative or pro-limited government position in a series of closely watched rulings dealing with affirmative action in college admissions, student loan relief, religious freedom, and property rights.
“Many questions remain at the end of the Court’s latest term regarding its reputation, credibility, and ‘honorable’ status,” Mr. Durbin said.
“I’m sorry to see Chief Justice [John] Roberts end the term without taking action on the ethical issues plaguing the Court—all while the Court handed down decisions that dismantled longstanding precedents and the progress our country has made over generations.”
Angered by the Court’s June 30 decision striking down President Joe Biden’s controversial plan to partially forgive student loans, Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) reportedly reintroduced their proposed Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act on July 3.
The court’s six conservative justices voted to invalidate the debt relief program, while the three liberal justices voted to uphold it.
“For many Americans, the Supreme Court is a distant, secretive, unelected body that can make drastic changes in their lives without any accountability,” Mr. Beyer said, as reported by Fox News.
“Recent partisan decisions by the Supreme Court that destroyed historic protections for reproductive rights, voting rights and more have undermined public trust in the Court—even as inappropriate financial relationships between justices and conservative donors raised new questions about its integrity.”
The session came after last year’s tumultuous term, in which the Court advanced conservative goals when it reversed Roe v. Wade, finding there was no constitutional right to abortion; recognized a constitutional right to carry a gun in public for self-defense; and curbed the government’s environmental regulatory powers.
The Court issued 58 opinions in cases argued in the term that began in October 2022. Its new term will begin with oral arguments in October. The Court is in recess for the summer and is scheduled to release orders in ongoing cases on July 24, Aug. 21, and Sept. 8.
Democrats have demanded that the Supreme Court adopt a code of ethics after the revelation of several alleged ethical lapses committed by conservative members of the court, particularly Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Democrats are outraged that wealthy Republican donor Harlan Crow gave Mr. Thomas luxurious vacations, tuition support for a grandnephew he raised, and purchased a property from the justice’s family.
Mr. Thomas didn’t disclose the events, saying he was advised that it wasn’t required, but has vowed to disclose such events going forward.
While Democrats say the gifts in themselves are proof of corruption, legal experts disagree. They point out there was no conflict of interest because Mr. Crow didn’t have any business before the High Court.
Mr. Alito said he did not mention the trip in a 2008 report because not disclosing it was the “standard practice” in cases like this.
“The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so I followed what I understood to be standard practice,” Mr. Alito wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month.
One of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittees held a hearing on the proposed Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023 (S.359) on June 14.
“Bogus personal hospitality, obvious conflicts of interests, phony front group anarchy. These are all areas ripe for repair,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), lead sponsor of the bill and chairman of the subcommittee.
“The American people are tired of waiting,” Mr. Whitehouse said at the time.
A recent poll “shows that almost 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the Supreme Court is doing its job. And that Americans are more likely to think that the justices’ honesty and ethical standards were low or very low.
“For an institution that depends on the public’s faith to carry out its functions, that is unsettling territory. If the Supreme Court isn’t going to do anything to restore the public’s trust, it’s up to us in Congress.
“We need to know more about front groups that helped appoint Trump’s justices, and then appear as litigants before those same justices,” the senator said.
Mr. Whitehouse’s bill would direct the Supreme Court to issue a code of conduct governing its own members. The bill would also create a system allowing members of the public to file complaints against justices for violating the code of conduct or for engaging “in conduct that undermines the integrity of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a good-government group that focuses on election integrity, told The Epoch Times that Democrats’ proposals to regulate the Supreme Court’s behavior are “unconstitutional.”
“They can confirm and fund/defund—nothing else,” Mr. Adams said by email.
The Epoch Times sought comment from the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), but had not received a reply at the time of publication.
The Epoch Times also reached out to the Supreme Court through its public information office but had not received a reply as of press time.
