The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday passed legislation that would impose strict new ethics rules on judges, overcoming fierce objections from Republicans to address a series of revelations about Supreme Court justices taking free luxury trips and receiving other financial benefits from wealthy benefactors.
The legislation, which has little chance of passing given strong GOP opposition, would require the Supreme Court to at least adopt and comply with ethics and disclosure rules equivalent to those applied to members of Congress. It would also impose new transparency requirements and create an appellate panel of judges to review complaints of misconduct against the judges. Democratic committee members said the action was necessary because the court has refused to self-check.
“This legislation will be a critical first step in restoring confidence in the court after a steady stream of reports of justice ethics failures,” Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat and committee chair, said of the bill, which passed by a party-line vote.
Republicans accused Democrats of wanting to “destroy” the conservative-dominated court and undermine its credibility in a fit of anger over decisions on abortion rights, the environment, civil rights and federal power opposed by Democrats. They said it had no chance of becoming law.
“This bill is going nowhere,” said South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, the senior Republican on the committee, who said the legislation would “fundamentally change the way the court works.”
He and other Republicans on the panel said the legislation represented a flagrant violation of the constitutional separation of powers because it would allow judges of lower courts to pass judgment on judges who review and sometimes reverse lower court decisions. They said lawyers would try to use the new rules to force judges to back down and bog down the court.
“I think our founders are turning in their graves,” said Texas Senator John Cornyn.
Democrats admitted the legislation could not pass the current Senate, where it would need 60 votes, and has no prospects in the Republican-controlled House. But they said the debate would draw attention to ethical issues at the Supreme Court and could create momentum for future action by Congress.
“We’re here because the highest court in the country has the lowest ethical standards anywhere in the federal government and judges have engaged in a lot of inappropriate behavior, not least in hapless attempts to excuse the wrongdoings,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat and the lead author of the bill. “This cannot go on. Defending this behavior is defending the indefensible.”
The battle was the latest clash over court in a committee that has seen increasingly partisan battles over court nominations and the confirmations from the judges themselves. Mr. Graham suggested earlier this week that the Democratic decision to move forward with ethics legislation, despite the failure of Congress to pass it, was likely to result in less Republican cooperation on the panel.
The Democratic march followed a series of news reports that showed Judge Clarence Thomas and Judge Samuel A. Alito taking lavish vacations and private jet trips courtesy of billionaires and not making them public. In the case of Judge Thomas, a Republican mega-donor, Harlan Crow, also paid for a family member’s education and purchased real estate from the Justice Department.
Vermont Democrat Senator Peter Welch said his voters have expressed surprise that judges can get such benefits, let alone not disclose them.
“Disclosure is the bare minimum, and that should apply to anyone who is a judge,” he said.
In defending the trips, the two judges said they believed they did not need to press charges because of their social relationships with those who collected the bill. And Republicans earlier this year pointed to a clarification of the code of ethics that applies to judges of federal courts other than the Supreme Court that they must disclose free stays at commercial properties.
Due to its special constitutional status, the Supreme Court is not bound by this judicial deontological code. But in a letter to the commission earlier this year, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said. that the court “take guidance” from the code of ethics followed by the lower courts.
Republicans said the ethics legislation was the latest installment in a Democratic effort to fuel public anger against the court. They repeatedly noted that Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat and Majority Leader, appeared at a 2020 rally for abortion rights outside the Supreme Court, singled out Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh and said they had “unleashed the whirlwind” and “will pay the price” if they do away with abortion rights.
The remarks drew a sharp rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts, and Mr Schumer walked them back the next day, saying he meant there would be political ramifications.
“This bill is not about oversight or accountability,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “It’s about harassing and intimidating the Supreme Court.”
But Democrats said they were simply trying to dispel an ethical cloud hanging over the court, noting that ethical questions had been raised against judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats.
“The highest court in the land should lead by example,” said Hawaii Democrat Senator Mazie K. Hirono.
Before passing the legislation, Democrats on the committee slammed back a series of Republican amendments designed to kill it.
Despite the committee’s approval, Mr. Schumer has not committed to bringing the ethics law to the table for a confrontation, which could hinder or delay other must-pass items. Action is unlikely to come any time soon as the Senate tries to push bipartisan legislation on Pentagon policies and spending, among other things.
But Mr. Schumer on Thursday reiterated his support for the bill.
“The American people agree that judges serving on the nation’s highest court should be held to equally high ethical standards,” he said.
