[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 102 (Monday, June 17, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Page S4109]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





          SUPREME COURT ETHICS, RECUSAL, AND TRANSPARENCY ACT

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise because now is the time to pass 
Senator Whitehouse's legislation to require the Supreme Court of the 
United States to adopt a binding and enforceable code of ethics, create 
a process for investigating misconduct, and improve the disclosure and 
transparency requirements for the Justices on our Nation's highest 
Court. I thank my colleagues Senators Whitehouse and Durbin for their 
leadership on this issue.
  I have long believed that rule of law is central to our democracy and 
that preserving public trust in our institutions is vital to the health 
of our Republic. It is important that the American people have 
confidence that the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States 
are making decisions based on the facts and the law, not private 
interests.
  The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States know this, 
too. In fact, the very first canon that the Supreme Court set out in 
its code of conduct last November states that ``a Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high 
standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and 
independence of the federal judiciary.''
  This isn't the first time that Congress has had to address the need 
for transparency and ethical requirements for government officials. In 
1978, in the wake of Watergate, Congress passed the Ethics in 
Government Act, which requires certain public officials, including 
Supreme Court Justices and members of the executive branch, to make 
disclosures about their financial interests, including income they 
receive from a source outside the Federal Government, gifts, debts they 
owe, and sales of certain real estate and stocks.
  Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen an alarming rise in 
reports of ethically questionable behavior by the Justices of the 
Supreme Court of the United States in regard to accepting and not 
disclosing gifts as required under the law. For example, we learned 
that in 2014, Justice Thomas allowed a billionaire to buy his mom's 
house and fix it up for her--and pay for the Justice and his wife to 
take lavish vacations. We also know that same billionaire paid for 
Justice Thomas to attend a trip to Malaysia on a private jet and a 
superyacht. That trip was valued at over $500,000 and was not disclosed 
by Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas was required to report these gifts, 
but he didn't. Instead, we only found out about it through the work of 
investigative journalists.
  There needs to be an enforceable code of ethics and mechanisms to 
investigate, and if necessary, take corrective action when the Justices 
don't take their reporting obligations seriously. That is how we 
preserve the American people's confidence in the institutions of 
government, including the Supreme Court.
  Just like transparency, judges are supposed to be above politics and 
avoid even the appearance of bias. In 1974, Congress passed a law 
requiring the Supreme Court's Justices, as well as other Federal 
judges, ``to recuse themselves when their impartiality might be 
reasonably questioned.''
  This was reiterated by the Supreme Court's own code of conduct 
adopted in November which states that a Justice should disqualify 
himself or herself where they have ``a personal bias or prejudice 
concerning a case.''
  In fact, the Justices are no strangers to the practice of recusing 
themselves when there is an appearance of impropriety. For 50 years, 
the Justices have followed the recusal law. For example, in 1995, 
Justice Thomas recused himself from United States v. Virginia because 
of his son's enrollment at Virginia Military Institute.
  If the Justices of the Supreme Court sat on any other Federal court, 
the clear and enforceable code of ethics would ensure that they recuse 
when their impartiality might be reasonably questioned. But at the 
Supreme Court, the decision to recuse is up to each Justice, and there 
is no explanation required.
  These examples demonstrate why Senator Whitehouse's bill--the Supreme 
Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act--is so important. It would 
require the Court to adopt an enforceable code of ethics. It requires 
that Justices disqualify themselves from cases in certain situations 
where their impartiality could be reasonably questioned such as if they 
have received gifts from parties appearing before the Court. It 
requires that Justices disclose the same information concerning gifts, 
income, and reimbursements as required by Members of Congress. And it 
provides for a process by which individuals may file complaints that a 
Justice has violated the code.
  This is hardly a radical proposal and this isn't about attacking one 
Justice or another. The majority of Americans--75 percent according to 
a recent report--support a binding ethics code for the Justices of the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  I call on all my colleagues--Democratic, Republican, and 
Independent--to come together, pass this bill, and help bring the 
Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States in line with the 
ethical requirements and accountability procedures that every other 
Federal judge in this country already abides by.

                          ____________________