[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 465 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 465

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the justices 
 of the United States Supreme Court should make themselves subject to 
  the existing and operative ethics guidelines set out in the Code of 
 Conduct for United States Judges, or should promulgate their own code 
                              of conduct.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 2015

 Ms. Norton submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the justices 
 of the United States Supreme Court should make themselves subject to 
  the existing and operative ethics guidelines set out in the Code of 
 Conduct for United States Judges, or should promulgate their own code 
                              of conduct.

Whereas section 455 of title 28, United States Code, establishes the 
        circumstances under which any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the 
        United States shall disqualify himself or herself from a case;
Whereas under chapter 16 of title 28, United States Code (relating to complaints 
        against judges and judicial discipline), the judicial circuits may 
        prescribe rules and procedures for the conduct of proceedings under that 
        chapter, including regarding complaint, investigative, and review 
        procedures for certain decisions of judges and magistrate judges of the 
        United States not to recuse themselves from cases;
Whereas litigants can seek legal recourse through the United States courts to 
        enforce section 455 of title 28, United States Code, and challenge the 
        disposition of the underlying case, and complainants have administrative 
        procedures under chapter 16 of title 28, United States Code, against a 
        judge or magistrate judge of the United States, but there are no 
        comparable enforcement mechanisms against the justices of the United 
        States;
Whereas the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a Code of Conduct 
        for United States Judges, which uses language identical to the relevant 
        portion of section 455 of title 28, United States Code, that a judge or 
        magistrate judge of the United States must abide by when deciding 
        whether to recuse himself or herself from a case, but the Code does not 
        apply to a justice of the United States Supreme Court;
Whereas justices of the United States Supreme Court are not bound by any written 
        code of conduct;
Whereas justices of the United States Supreme Court each have unreviewable 
        authority to determine whether there is an appearance of bias, conflict 
        of interest, or other ethical justification sufficient for withdrawal 
        from hearing, partaking in deliberations in, or joining in the 
        resolution of, a case or controversy;
Whereas the Federal Judicial Center has concluded that ``balancing the duty to 
        decide'' with ``the duty to disqualify'' precludes judges from using 
        recusal as an excuse to shirk their duties by avoiding difficult or 
        unpleasant cases;
Whereas the United States Constitution vests judicial power in one Supreme 
        Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time 
        ordain and establish;
Whereas the separation of powers of the coordinate branches of government, as 
        well as the independence of the judiciary, or the appearance of 
        independence, may be compromised by extensive legislative or executive 
        interference into that branch's functions;
Whereas James Madison argued in Federalist Paper Number 10 that ``[n]o man is 
        allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would 
        certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his 
        integrity''; and
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged in Republican Party of 
        Minnesota v. White, and reiterated in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 
        that ``[t]he citizen's respect for judgments depends . . . upon the 
        issuing court's absolute probity'' and that ``[j]udicial integrity is, 
        in consequence, a state interest of the highest order'': Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the justices of the United States Supreme Court should make themselves 
subject to the existing and operative ethics guidelines set out in the 
Code of Conduct for United States Judges, or should promulgate their 
own ethical code.
                                 <all>