Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 25, 2026
Bottom line
The bill creates an internal ethics and investigative framework for the Supreme Court, aiming to enhance accountability and transparency regarding judicial conduct through advisory services, mandatory training, and independent investigations with subpoena power.
What it actually does
This bill establishes two new offices within the Supreme Court of the United States: an Office of Ethics Counsel and an Office of Investigative Counsel. The Ethics Counsel will advise justices and their spouses on judicial ethics, while the Investigative Counsel will review and investigate ethics complaints against justices, their spouses, and dependents, with the authority to issue subpoenas.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation is crucial for restoring public trust in the Supreme Court by providing a robust, independent mechanism for addressing ethical concerns. They contend that clear guidance, mandatory training, and a formal investigative process with subpoena power are necessary to ensure accountability and prevent conflicts of interest among justices.
Opponents contend
Critics may argue that this bill infringes upon the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers, potentially subjecting the Supreme Court to political pressures. They might also contend that the Court is capable of self-regulation and that creating new offices with significant investigative powers could lead to politicized inquiries or an overreach of authority.
The bill is relatively concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, amending Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, by adding Sec. 678
Establishment of Office of Ethics Counsel (OEC)
This provision creates an Office of Ethics Counsel within the Supreme Court, led by a Chief Ethics Counsel and additional staff. The office's primary role is to advise Supreme Court justices and their spouses on a range of judicial ethics matters, including financial disclosure, acceptance of gifts, political activity, conflicts of interest, recusal, and the unauthorized disclosure of official documents.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend that this office will provide clear, consistent, and expert ethics guidance, proactively preventing potential conflicts and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality.
Critics contend
Some might argue that justices are already bound by a code of conduct and existing laws, and this office adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy or could be seen as an intrusion on judicial independence.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for clear ethical standards and public accountability with concerns about preserving judicial independence and avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.
Section 2, Sec. 678(b), (c), (d)
OEC Staffing, Qualifications, Training, and Reporting
This provision details the structure and operation of the Office of Ethics Counsel. It specifies that the Chief Ethics Counsel serves two 6-year terms with a minimum annual salary of $225,000, and other counsels serve similar terms with a minimum salary of $180,000. All counsels must be licensed attorneys with at least 5 years of experience. Justices are mandated to take biannual ethics training. The Chief Ethics Counsel must submit an annual report to Congress, detailing the ethics advice given, topics covered, recommended mitigation measures, and instances where advice was not followed.
Section 3, amending Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, by adding Sec. 679
Establishment of Office of Investigative Counsel (OIC)
This provision establishes an Office of Investigative Counsel within the Supreme Court, consisting of a Chief Investigative Counsel and at least two additional investigative counsels. This office is charged with reviewing and investigating ethics complaints filed against Supreme Court justices, as well as their spouses and dependents, to ensure accountability for alleged misconduct.
Section 3, Sec. 679(b)
OIC Staffing, Qualifications, and Subpoena Authority
This provision outlines the staffing and powers of the Office of Investigative Counsel. The Chief Investigative Counsel serves one 6-year term with a minimum annual salary of $225,000, appointed by the Chief Justice and terminable only for cause. Additional investigative counsels are appointed by the Chief Investigative Counsel, serve at their pleasure, and earn a minimum of $180,000. All counsels must be licensed attorneys with at least 7 years of experience. Critically, the Chief Investigative Counsel is granted subpoena power to compel witness testimony and the production of relevant documents, enforceable by U.S. district courts.
Section 3, Sec. 679(c)
Ethics Complaint Process and Reporting
This provision outlines the process for filing, reviewing, investigating, and reporting on ethics complaints. Specific congressional leaders (Judiciary Committee chairs/ranking members, Senate/House leaders) are authorized to file complaints. The OIC must review complaints within 60 days to decide if a full investigation is warranted, considering violations of the Supreme Court's Code of Conduct, the Judicial Code of Conduct, or other laws. If an investigation proceeds, the OIC submits findings and recommendations to the Chief Justice (or the most senior associate justice if the Chief Justice is the subject). The Chief Justice (or senior associate) has sole discretion to release the report publicly, with redactions. Reports must be made available to specific congressional committees within 10 days, and potential Federal criminal law violations must be reported to the Attorney General.
This subsection provides broad definitions for 'gift' and 'political activity,' which are central to the ethics advice provided by the Office of Ethics Counsel. 'Gift' includes any item of monetary value, services, training, travel, lodging, and meals. 'Political activity' encompasses paid speaking events, fundraisers, donations, and endorsements.
Section 2, Sec. 678(e)
Why it matters:While placing definitions at the end of a section is standard legislative practice, the comprehensive nature of these definitions significantly shapes the scope of ethical conduct for justices and their families, making them more consequential than typical definitional clauses.
Case for: Supporters would argue that clear, comprehensive definitions are essential for consistent application of ethics rules and for the OEC to provide effective guidance, preventing ambiguity and potential loopholes that could be exploited.
Case against: Critics might argue that overly broad definitions could lead to an expansive interpretation of 'ethics violations' or 'political activity,' potentially chilling legitimate interactions or speech by justices and their families, or creating an overly burdensome compliance environment.
Estimated impact: These definitions significantly shape the scope of ethical conduct and potential violations for Supreme Court justices, affecting all nine justices and their families by clearly outlining what activities fall under ethics scrutiny.
The bill specifies that the Chief Ethics Counsel and the Chief Investigative Counsel may only be terminated by the Chief Justice 'for cause.' However, additional investigative counsels 'shall serve at the pleasure of the Chief Investigative Counsel.'
Sec. 678(b)(4) and Sec. 679(b)(1)(E)
Why it matters:These are specific employment terms, often found in detailed staffing provisions. The distinction between 'for cause' and 'at the pleasure' is subtle but highly significant for the independence and job security of the respective counsels.
Case for: Proponents would argue that 'for cause' termination for the Chief Ethics Counsel and Chief Investigative Counsel ensures their independence from political pressure, allowing them to perform their duties without fear of arbitrary removal. Allowing the Chief Investigative Counsel to terminate other investigative counsels 'at pleasure' provides necessary managerial flexibility.
Case against: Critics might argue that 'at the pleasure' termination for investigative counsels could undermine their independence, making them susceptible to pressure from the Chief Investigative Counsel, who is himself appointed by the Chief Justice. This could create a hierarchy where lower-level investigators are less secure and potentially less willing to pursue sensitive inquiries.
Estimated impact: This distinction affects the job security and perceived independence of the ethics and investigative staff, which in turn influences the credibility and effectiveness of the offices in carrying out their sensitive duties.