Introduction

Public confidence in the Supreme Court has declined in recent years, largely because of ethics controversies involving undisclosed gifts, luxury travel, and potential conflicts of interest. Investigations have documented millions of dollars in gifts accepted by justices, along with additional reports of undisclosed benefactor relationships. These developments have raised concerns about impartiality and transparency at the highest court in the country. In response, Congress has repeatedly introduced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, known as the SCERT Act. The most recent version was reintroduced in May 2025. The goal of the bill is to create enforceable ethics standards for the Supreme Court, something that does not currently exist.

What the SCERT Act Would Do

The SCERT Act would create mandatory ethics obligations for Supreme Court justices. These obligations fall into four main categories.

The first requirement is the adoption of a binding ethics code. Supreme Court justices are not currently bound by an enforceable ethics code. The Court adopted a voluntary code in 2023, but it contains no enforcement mechanism. The SCERT Act would require the Court to adopt a public and binding code of conduct that is at least as strict as the one that applies to lower federal judges. It would also require the Court to publish advisory opinions and ethics guidance.

The second requirement of the SCERT Act is an independent ethics review mechanism. The Act would create an independent office that can investigate ethics complaints. This office would be staffed by randomly-selected lower court judges. It would also have the authority to receive complaints, conduct investigations, issue findings, and require a justice to recuse in certain cases. This structure is designed to replace the self-policing system currently in place. 

The Act would also instate mandatory recusal standards. This would require the Court to adopt recusal rules that match or exceed the standards in 28 U.S.C. § 455, which governs lower federal judges. Conflicts that would require recusal include financial conflicts, such as investments, gifts, or paid travel; personal relationships involving family or close associates; prior involvement in a case; benefactor relationships, including ties to individuals who filed amicus briefs, funded litigation, or supported organizations with business before the Court; and any political or organizational ties. 

Lower court judges would also be involved in reviewing recusal decisions by Supreme Court justices. If a justice decides not to recuse, the Act requires a written explanation that describes the alleged conflict, explains why recusal is not necessary, and identifies any mitigating factors. All recusal decisions would be posted online, and the Court would publish annual reports summarizing trends or patterns of concern.

The last section of the Act is the expanded disclosure and transparency requirements. The Act strengthens financial and case-related disclosure rules. As a result, Justices would be required to report gifts, travel, and hospitality, including private jet travel, non-commercial flights, paid lodging, and hospitality from individuals with business before the Court; all financial assets and outside income, including book deals, teaching, and speaking fees; spousal income and business relationships; reimbursements for travel or professional activities; benefactor relationships; and case-related conflicts, along with written explanations for recusal decisions.

Why SCERT Keeps Getting Reintroduced: Supporting Arguments for the Act

Supporters of the SCERT Act argue that it responds directly to a clear public demand for stronger ethics rules at the Supreme Court. A 2024 poll shows that 76% of Americans favor a binding ethics code for the Court, which suggests that the public sees enforceable standards as essential to maintaining legitimacy and trust in judicial decision-making. Judges themselves have also voiced concern about the current gap. The National Judicial College has highlighted the inconsistency between the strict ethical codes that bind every other judge in the United States and the absence of a comparable code for Supreme Court justices. New York Judge Paul R. Hart described it as “ludicrous” that all other judicial officers must follow detailed ethics rules while the justices of the highest court in the U.S. do not. For supporters, the SCERT Act brings the Court into alignment with the expectations already placed on the rest of the judiciary.

Proponents also argue that the Act is necessary because the Court’s 2023 voluntary Code of Conduct is not sufficient. The Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive legal reform organization, concludes the new ethics code is “designed to fail,” in part because it lacks meaningful enforcement mechanisms and leaves key questions of recusal and disclosure to the justices’ own discretion. By contrast, the SCERT Act would establish binding standards, provide for independent review, and require more public reporting. Supporters further point to the long history of congressional involvement in judicial ethics and financial disclosure. c including justices, through existing statutes and guidance. Additional ethics policies and resources developed for the federal judiciary show that structured, enforceable standards are both workable and familiar within the court system. From this perspective, the SCERT Act is not a radical innovation but an extension of existing practices to an institution that has so far remained an exception.

Why It Still Hasn’t Been Enacted: Opposing Arguments of the Act 

Opponents of the SCERT Act argue that it threatens judicial independence by allowing Congress to intrude on the internal governance of the Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito has stated that there is no provision in the Constitution that gives Congress authority to regulate the Supreme Court in this way, suggesting that such legislation would upset the separation of powers and system of checks and balances. Critics also focus on the Act’s proposal to involve lower court judges in reviewing recusal decisions by Supreme Court justices. Testimony at a hearing on the SCERT Act warned that giving lower court judges a role in overseeing or approving the decisions of justices could create tension with the constitutional structure and potentially undermine the Court’s institutional position. For these critics, the risk is that ethics reform becomes a vehicle for external control over the Court’s internal functioning.

Some opponents also contend that the SCERT Act is driven more by political disagreement with recent decisions than by neutral concern about ethics. Commentary from the Heritage Foundation argues that the bill reflects disapproval of the Court’s rulings rather than a genuine effort to improve standards. Senator Chuck Grassley has similarly described the legislation as the result of a “temper tantrum by the far left,” framing it as a partisan response rather than a principled reform. Opponents further point to the Supreme Court’s adoption of a voluntary ethics code in 2023 as evidence that legislative intervention is unnecessary. Reporting from Roll Call notes that some lawmakers view the 2023 code as a sufficient step and see additional statutory requirements as excessive or redundant. Together, these arguments present the SCERT Act as both constitutionally questionable and politically motivated, rather than a straightforward ethics measure.

Ongoing Debates Over Judicial Ethics

The SCERT Act continues to be reintroduced because underlying concerns about transparency and public trust remain unresolved. Although the Court has taken steps toward greater openness, significant gaps still exist. The American Bar Association’s recent analysis of constitutional pathways for enforceable ethics rules concludes that Congress does have room to legislate in this area, particularly through its authority over judicial administration and financial disclosure. The report also emphasizes that voluntary measures are insufficient because they lack accountability and do not provide a mechanism for addressing disputes or violations. At the same time, the nonpartisan nonprofit Fix the Court’s 2025 Year‑in‑Review highlights how ethics controversies persisted throughout the year despite the Court’s adoption of a voluntary code, noting repeated failures in disclosure, inconsistent recusal practices, and continued reliance on private benefactors for travel and hospitality. The central challenge is how to ensure accountability for an institution that is designed to be insulated from political pressure but still depends on public trust for its legitimacy.

Frequently Asked Questions