(Photo by Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images)
There seems to be a worldwide dip in the strength of the rule of law, specifically in the areas of human rights and checks and balances, and the United States is no exception — just think about Dobbs and how racial gerrymandering is cool all of a sudden. This has, unsurprisingly, led to a dip in thelegitimacy that the American public gives to the courts generally. So much so that Chief Justice Roberts even admitted that federal judges have work to do when it comes to living up to their ethical responsibilities — federal judges getting caught insider trading doesn’t make for the most trustworthy faces of authority, you know. But neither does throwing stones from a glass home. The Supreme Court has been catching flack for not having a binding code of ethics that they have to live up to for a while now. Maybe their tune will change considering that they’ve gained an influential critic.
The U.S. Supreme Court should adopt a binding code of ethics for its justices that is akin to the code of conduct the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted for other federal judges, the House of Delegates said after a spirited debate at the 2023 ABA Midyear Meeting in New Orleans on Monday.
Resolution 400, which was submitted by the King County Bar Association in Seattle, also urges all other bar associations to pass their own resolutions calling for the Supreme Court to adopt a code of judicial ethics that is binding on its justices.
James Williams, the Washington state delegate to the House of Delegates, introduced the resolution, saying it could be “the most consequential that we will have a conversation about during this House.” He contended the American people need to know that the legal system—at its highest level—has some code that governs their conduct.
It would be very nice to know that there is some code that governs the conduct of the folks operating at the highest level of the legal system. Maybe that would assuage the worries of partisan behavior coming from “neutral” judges, or the worries of partisan behavior coming from “neutral” judges, or the worries of partisan behavior coming from “neutral” judges and their spouses… you get my point. And, because it really bears repeating, this court is the only one not subject to any accountability measures outside of a couple federal statutes that they’d maybe heed if it really came down to it.
“How do we explain to [the American public] when they find out that every lawyer in this room, every judge in this room, every lawyer and every judge across the United States of America has a code of conduct, but the United States Supreme Court does not?” Williams said. “How do you explain to the American people when they discover that every part of our government structure, all the other agencies, have codes of conduct, but the United States Supreme Court does not?”
Williams also argued the resolution is vital to the legal profession and the Supreme Court itself.
“This resolution is about protecting the Supreme Court,” he said. “It is about bolstering the court’s reputation and its credibility with the American people and within this profession.”
Some boosted reputation and credibility couldn’t hurt — it is currently at the lowest it has ever been in our nation’s history. Better get on that “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” issue while you have any legitimacy left.
Supreme Court justices should follow binding code of ethics, ABA House says [ABA Journal]
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.