Dems Consider Going After Supreme Court's Money If They Don't Get An Actual Ethics Rule

(Photo by Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images)

The Supreme Court isn't having a particularly good run. I mean, trust their power to shape policy remains undisturbed, but putting kibosh on 50 years of precedent that has directly resulted in plummeting maternal mortality rates has put downward pressure on the public's perception of the Court's legitimacy.

Then there's the mounting ethics scandals facing the Court. The public's attention has (finally) turned to Justice Clarence Thomas and his IDGAF attitude towards recusals. Despite his wife's advocacy work on behalf of issues destined to appear before the Supreme Court, Thomas has simply not recused himself in any cases related to that work.

It's a repeated pattern, with Ginni's post-election advocacy making Clarence's votes on matters related to the January 6th committee super suspect. But even before that made headlines, she led a grassroots movement in support of Trump's travel ban, worked for right-wing think tanks, and led efforts to defeat the Affordable Care Act. And nary a recusal in sight. That is clearly bad.

Frankly, Thomas has been swathed in ethics scandal after ethics scandal but the lack of an enforceable ethics code means absolutely nothing happens. And the stench of questionable ethics has spread to other justices.

Supreme Court justices would really rather the public *not* know exactly how their spouses make money. Yes, that's even if they are attorneys and may EASILY advise clients on matters before he Court. Sure, not every justice's spouse that works in the legal industry poses an ethics dilemma, but it's enough to make folks jumpy.

As reported by the Washington Post, Congress just might get around to doing something about that:

A key Democratic senator plans to use Congress's power of the purse to pressure the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct as the justices come under increasing scrutiny for not having clear ethics rules in place.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the court's budget, told The Early that he will use his spending bill this year to try to force the justices to adhere to an enforceable ethics code -- similar to the one that applies to federal judges.

"The Supreme Court should have a code of ethics to govern the conduct of its members, and its refusal to adopt such standards has contributed to eroding public confidence in the highest court in the land," Van Hollen said in a statement to The Early. "It is unacceptable that the Supreme Court has exempted itself from the accountability that applies to all other members of our federal courts, and I believe Congress should act to remedy this problem."

If this sounds familiar -- it should. Fix the Court was pitching the idea in November, when this Supreme ethics scandal was making the rounds.

"Get a Member to threaten to withhold the justices' [discretionary] funding until they act on ethics. One of the great disappointments of the last few years is that with the justices not adopting an ethics code, among other oversights, and with the judiciary as a whole failing to adequately improve its workplace conduct policies, House and Senate Appropriations continue to rubber-stamp their budgets year after year. We realize it's probably too late in this Congress to do anything about this, but will one single, solitary member of an Appropriations Committee step up and say 'no more'? We're redoubling our efforts on that after today. Our take: if the nine can't bother with ethics, then taxpayers shouldn't bother with a nine-figure slush fund. (The discretionary spending in the SCOTUS FY23 budget is more than $120 million -- $143.6 million requested, minus the $3 million for the justices' salaries and an estimated $19 million for the Supreme Court Police Department.)"

Van Hollen thinks he'll be able to cross the aisle to get support for the measure saying, "I don't see any reason why ensuring that the Supreme Court establish a code of ethics should be a partisan issue." But the most senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee isn't sold. "That strikes me as a policy issue that would be better debated and decided by the Judiciary Committee than an Appropriations subcommittee," said Susan Collins.

So overall, I'm not overly optimistic the ethics quandary will be solved lickety split. But the continued attention to the problem is at least a good sign.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon