But the Supreme Court of the United States is not formally bound by the Code of Conduct that guides the behavior of all other federal judges, and its process for determining whether a justice has a conflict of interest requiring recusal from a case leaves the decision solely in the hands of the justice with the potential conflict.
 |
A Question of Integrity: Politics, Ethics and the Supreme Court exposes evidence that some Supreme Court justices have attended overtly political meetings, have inappropriately lent their names to private fundraisers, have maintained financial and personal relationships with individuals and institutions that give rise to the appearance of impropriety, and have failed to disclose financial information required by federal law. Narrated by award-winning actor Edward James Olmos, this 15-minute film explores ways in which this problematic behavior raises questions about the need to formally apply the Code of Conduct to the Court, reform the recusal process, and enforce the Ethics in Government Act. Viewers are called to action in support of constitutionally appropriate legislative and procedural fixes, all of which are essential to preserve the integrity of our nation’s most important legal institution.
Learn more about the need for ethics reform on the Supreme Court:
- A Question of Integrity Hangs Over the U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to read AFJ President Nan Aron’s latest blog on the Huffington Post, spelling out the case for Supreme Court ethics reform.
- Code of Conduct: Click here to read a memorandum detailing how the Code of Conduct would apply to recent political and fundraising activities of Supreme Court justices. Click here for the single-page version.
- Recusal: Click here to read a memorandum explaining the recusal standard and the ways in which the procedural mechanisms governing recusal differ for Supreme Court justices. Click here for the single-page version.
- Ethics in Government Act: Click here to read a memorandum explaining the financial disclosure rules that apply to Supreme Court justices, and the consequences for failing to disclose information.
x x x."
