Highest judicial court in
The discussion surrounding ethics within the Supreme Court involves the question of who has the authority to hold the justices accountable. During private discussions and in written communications, the justices established new guidelines for their own behavior, but they were divided on the issue of whether these rules could and should be enforced.
Image credit goes to Chantal Jahchan.
Backed by
Written by Jodi Kantor and Abbie VanSickle
At the conclusion of the summer of 2023, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court started exchanging highly confidential memos in a more discreet manner than usual. Instead of using their regular email system, they opted to pass paper documents in envelopes between chambers. In light of ethics issues and a decline in public confidence, they were discussing regulations for their own behavior, as reported by individuals familiar with the situation.
After several weeks, they came together and shared the outcome: the court’s inaugural ethics code. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch expressed his surprise at the unanimous agreement during a television interview.
A New York Times investigation discovered that within the court, there was a split on whether the new rules set by the justices could be implemented or if they should be enforced at all.
Justice Gorsuch strongly opposed the idea of implementing any enforcement mechanisms that went beyond voluntary compliance, as he believed that such measures could potentially weaken the court. He emphasized the importance of the justices’ independence and stated that he would not support anything that might compromise it.
During private conversations, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dismissed criticism of the court as being driven by political motives and impossible to satisfy. Thomas’ failure to disclose gifts and vacations from wealthy donors had led to an ethics controversy.
Starting off the conversation with a good morning greeting, I’m interested to know if anyone’s opinions on enforcement changed or became conflicted after reading the article.
I used to strongly believe that Justices and their family members should not receive gifts or benefits. However, after reading the article, I now understand that some Justices may view restrictions on these things as interfering with the independence of the court. I wish the article had delved more into how "hospitality" and paid speeches could potentially influence upcoming cases and future issues. It’s intriguing to note that, similar to members of Congress, Justices may not receive salaries high enough to sustain the standard of living expected by the public. Perhaps increasing salaries could help reduce the temptation to accept gifts and deals. While Justices don’t necessarily need to be millionaires, they should be able to support themselves and their families without outside assistance. Isn’t being a Supreme Court Justice a full-time commitment? Shouldn’t they prioritize their work over writing books, giving speeches, or taking long vacations? Overall, I appreciated the article for its insightful reporting. Thank you.
Why should Supreme Court justices not be held to the same standards as other federal judges, as suggested by Jodi Kantor?
Fantastic reporting by Jodi Kantor. However, the problem of Justices being influenced by billionaires is just one aspect of a larger issue. The Supreme Court, originally meant to be impartial, is now heavily influenced by politics. Five members of the Republican majority have ties to the Bush v Gore case, either working for Bush or being appointed by him. Additionally, Gorsuch only made it to the Court due to McConnell blocking Garland’s nomination. This partisan influence has allowed Trump to evade prosecution and enabled billionaires like Elon Musk to spend exorbitant amounts to influence elections. While preventing Justices from being bought by billionaires is important, the deeper issue of extreme partisanship still needs to be addressed.
After reading the article by Jodi Kantor, I realized that conservative judges believe that enforcing certain rules could jeopardize the independence of the institution. However, I believe they are overlooking the importance of maintaining public trust in the institution. While I don’t expect anyone to sacrifice themselves, prioritizing personal benefits over public trust in the Supreme Court may not make someone the right fit for the job.
We are experiencing difficulties in accessing the content of the article.
To use this website properly, make sure that JavaScript is enabled
We appreciate your understanding as we check your access. If you are currently in Reader mode, please close it and sign in to your Times account, or consider subscribing to access all of The Times content.
We appreciate your understanding as we confirm access.
Are you currently a member? Sign in.
Interested in accessing all the content from The Times? Subscribe now to
Prom
Index of the website
Navigation for site information