Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 25, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates an internal ethics and investigative framework for the Supreme Court, aiming to enhance accountability and transparency regarding judicial conduct.
What it actually does
This bill establishes two new offices within the Supreme Court: an Office of Ethics Counsel to advise justices and their spouses on ethical matters and provide mandatory training, and an Office of Investigative Counsel with subpoena power to review and investigate ethics complaints against justices and their families. It mandates annual reporting on ethics advice and requires the Investigative Counsel to report potential federal criminal law violations to the Attorney General.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for restoring public trust in the Supreme Court by creating independent ethics oversight and investigation mechanisms. They contend that the current system lacks transparency and enforcement, and that formalizing ethics guidance and complaint resolution through dedicated offices will ensure accountability and adherence to ethical standards for the highest court.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill infringes upon judicial independence and the separation of powers by subjecting Supreme Court justices to external or quasi-external oversight mechanisms. They may contend that the Supreme Court is capable of self-regulation and that such offices could be politicized, undermining the Court's authority and impartiality.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, amending Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, by adding Section 678.
Establishment of the Office of Ethics Counsel
This provision authorizes the Chief Justice to create an Office of Ethics Counsel within the Supreme Court. This office will be staffed by a chief ethics counsel and other counsels, who will advise Supreme Court justices and their spouses on various judicial ethics matters, including financial disclosures, gift acceptance, political activity, conflicts of interest, recusal, and unauthorized disclosure of court documents.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this office provides essential, proactive guidance to justices, helping them navigate complex ethical landscapes and prevent potential violations, thereby enhancing the Court's integrity.
Critics contend
Some might argue that justices already have access to ethics advice and that formalizing this office could create an unnecessary bureaucracy or an avenue for politicized ethics interpretations.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for clear ethical guidance with concerns about potential overreach or bureaucratic burden on the judiciary.
Section 2, 28 U.S.C. 678(c) and (d).
Biannual Ethics Training and Annual Public Reporting
The bill mandates that the Office of Ethics Counsel provide, and all Supreme Court justices take, a biannual training course on judicial ethics. Additionally, the chief ethics counsel must submit an annual report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees detailing the ethics advice given, including the number of times advice was sought, topics covered, mitigation measures recommended, and instances where advice was not followed.
Section 3, amending Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, by adding Section 679.
Establishment of the Office of Investigative Counsel with Subpoena Power
This provision authorizes the Chief Justice to establish an Office of Investigative Counsel, comprising a Chief Investigative Counsel and at least two additional counsels. This office is tasked with reviewing and investigating ethics complaints against justices, their spouses, and dependents. Crucially, the Chief Investigative Counsel is granted subpoena power to compel testimony and the production of documents, enforceable by U.S. district courts.
Section 3, 28 U.S.C. 679(c).
Formal Ethics Complaint Filing, Review, and Reporting Process
This section outlines a formal process for filing ethics complaints against justices by specific congressional leaders. The Office of Investigative Counsel must review complaints within 60 days, determining if a full investigation is warranted based on potential violations of the Supreme Court's Code of Conduct, the Judicial Code of Conduct, or other laws. If an investigation proceeds, the OIC must report its findings and recommendations to the Chief Justice (or senior associate justice if the Chief is the subject). These reports may be publicly released by the Chief Justice and must be made available to relevant congressional committees.
Section 3, 28 U.S.C. 679(c)(4)(D)(iii).
Reporting Potential Criminal Violations to the Attorney General
This provision mandates that the Office of Investigative Counsel must expeditiously report to the Attorney General whenever it has reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of Federal criminal law has occurred during the course of its duties.
Mandates the Office of Investigative Counsel to report expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever it has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law.
Section 3, 28 U.S.C. 679(c)(4)(D)(iii).
Why it matters:While it's a critical function, its placement within detailed reporting mechanics is standard legislative drafting practice for specific operational duties rather than a primary policy statement. However, its importance warrants higher visibility.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that potential criminal conduct by Supreme Court justices or their families is not shielded by internal ethics processes and is instead referred to the appropriate federal law enforcement agency, upholding the principle that no one is above the law.
Case against: Critics might contend that this provision could be exploited for political purposes, allowing for politically motivated ethics investigations to become conduits for criminal referrals, potentially chilling judicial independence or creating an avenue for harassment.
Estimated impact: This provision could have a significant impact on the accountability of Supreme Court justices, potentially leading to criminal investigations for serious misconduct, a power not explicitly available under current internal ethics processes.