Recent Supreme Court decisions remind us that the views of the nine Justices have enormous effects on the lives of Americans. Americans must be able to trust that decisions affecting their livelihoods, health, and basic rights are based on law and precedent and not swayed by powerful outside interests.

Unfortunately, a majority of Americans have lost confidence in the Court’s integrity. Distrust has been fed by recent revelations of well-funded efforts to influence the direction of the Court and sway individual Justices, including revelations of expensive vacations and other personal favors for Justices. Many Americans have been shocked to learn that there are no binding ethical restraints on Supreme Court Justices like those that apply to lower courts and to government officials generally. They have been disappointed that the Chief Justice has refused to appear before relevant committees of Congress to answer questions about these serious issues.

Congress must address this issue before trust in the Court falls to even lower levels. While several Supreme Court ethics bills have been introduced, the only current proposal that addresses the full scope of the problem is the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act, S. 359, H.R. 926. The bill would:

• Create a process for investigating misconduct at the Supreme Court;
• Strengthen recusal standards and strengthen disclosure rules for special interests trying to influence the Court;
• Improve disclosure of travel and hospitality for Justices and create a binding code of ethics; and, 
• Require a code of ethics to be adopted by the Supreme Court within 180 days, including disclosure requirements for gifts, travel, and income received by justices and law clerks at least as rigorous as House and Senate disclosure rules.

There are other concerns with the Supreme Court besides the absence of binding ethics rules, including the extraordinary power that some Justices are willing to exercise over many aspects of American life and the decades they may serve without limits on their terms. Recent events, however, have focused congressional attention on the absence of binding ethics rules. The Senate Judiciary Committee has announced its intent to move ahead with the markup of S.359 (the SCERT Act), making this an excellent time to make our views and moral concerns known on this subject.   

Grounding

Our 5th UU Principle, “The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and society at large,” compels us to advocate for a healthy, inclusive democratic process. 

Articles and testimony:

• ProPublica
• American Bar Association
• New York Times
• Citizens for Ethics
• Washington Post
• The Guardian
• CNN
• Politico
• Rollcall