The Supreme Court code of conduct is a written set of ethics rules the justices formally adopted on November 13, 2023, covering integrity, recusal, outside activities, financial disclosure, and political conduct.1Supreme Court of the United States. Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States It is the first such document in the Court’s history. It is also unenforceable in any formal sense: the Code contains no sanctions, no disciplinary procedures, and no process for filing a complaint against a justice. Each justice remains the sole judge of their own compliance.
Before November 2023, the justices operated under what the Court described as “common law ethics rules” drawn from federal statutes, advisory opinions issued to lower federal judges, and historic practice. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which has bound every other federal judge since 1973, never applied to the Supreme Court. The justices said the absence of a written code had created a “misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”1Supreme Court of the United States. Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States The 2023 document was presented as a codification rather than a set of new obligations.
What the Code Covers
The Code is organized into five canons. Canons 1 and 2 set the baseline standard: justices must act in ways that preserve the independence and integrity of the judiciary, comply with the law, and promote public confidence in the Court’s impartiality.2Legal Information Institute. Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States The operative test is the “appearance of impropriety”: if a reasonable, well-informed person would doubt a justice’s ability to act with integrity, the conduct crosses the line.
Justices may not use the prestige of their office to advance private interests, whether their own or someone else’s. They cannot create the impression that any person holds special influence over them. These rules extend beyond courtroom decisions to all conduct connected to the judicial office. Canon 3 addresses recusal. Canon 4 covers extrajudicial writing, teaching, and speaking, and permits those activities as long as they do not interfere with judicial duties or exploit the office. Canon 5 restricts political activity.
When a Justice Must Recuse
Recusal is where the Code meets binding federal law. The operative standard comes from 28 U.S.C. § 455, the federal disqualification statute that applies to all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. United States Code Title 28 – 455 Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge The general rule: a justice must step aside whenever a reasonable person would question their impartiality. The statute then lists specific situations that require it.
A justice must recuse when they have personal bias toward a party, or when they know disputed facts about the case from outside the courtroom. Prior professional involvement also triggers disqualification. A justice who served as a lawyer or material witness in the same matter cannot hear it. Neither can a justice who worked on the matter in government service and expressed a view on its merits, or who sat as a lower court judge on the same dispute.
Financial conflicts require recusal at any dollar amount. Under the statute, “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest “however small” in a party or in the subject matter.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. United States Code Title 28 – 455 Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge A single share of stock in a company that is a party is enough. The rule extends to the justice’s spouse and to minor children living in the household. Mutual funds and index funds holding a company’s stock do not count unless the justice actively manages the fund.
Family connections do their own work. If anyone within three degrees of relationship to the justice or the justice’s spouse is a party, a lawyer in the case, or has an interest that would be substantially affected by the outcome, the justice must withdraw.
Not all grounds are treated the same when parties want to waive them. The specific grounds in § 455(b), including financial interests and family relationships, cannot be waived under any circumstances. When the concern arises only from the general “reasonable question about impartiality” standard, parties can agree to waive it, but only after the justice discloses the basis for the potential disqualification on the record.
Why Recusal Works Differently at the Supreme Court
In a district court or circuit court, a recused judge is replaced. At the Supreme Court, there is no substitute. All nine justices sit on every case, and when one steps aside the Court proceeds with eight or fewer.1Supreme Court of the United States. Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States The Code’s Commentary acknowledges the practical pressure this creates against recusal. At the merits stage, a petitioner still needs five votes to overturn a lower court ruling, and a missing justice effectively functions as a vote against them. An even split leaves the lower court decision in place with no national precedent.
Because of these consequences, the Code preserves two doctrines that push toward participation. The “duty to sit” tells justices to resolve borderline recusal questions in favor of hearing the case. The “rule of necessity” can override disqualification entirely when a justice’s participation is essential to the Court’s ability to decide a case at all. Neither doctrine exists in the lower court code, because lower courts never face the problem of an unfillable seat.
When a justice does step aside, the recusal is noted in the Court’s public orders at both the certiorari and merits stages. Justices are not required to explain why. Some occasionally provide a reason; others simply withdraw without comment.
Financial Disclosure and Gifts
The Ethics in Government Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 13104, requires every justice to file an annual financial disclosure report.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. United States Code Title 5 – 13104 Contents of Reports Reports cover income from all sources, dividends and capital gains above $200, interests in property worth more than $1,000, and liabilities above $10,000 owed to any creditor other than a close family member. Securities transactions exceeding $1,000 must also be reported.
Gifts have their own thresholds. Under Office of Government Ethics guidance, gifts from a single non-relative source totaling more than $480 during the reporting period must be disclosed, and individual gifts worth $192 or less don’t need to be counted toward that total.5Office of Government Ethics. OGE Form 278e – Part 9 Gifts and Travel Reimbursements The same figures apply to travel reimbursements. These amounts were set in 2023 and are updated periodically; the next adjustment is expected in 2026.
One carveout has drawn most of the recent attention. Food, lodging, and entertainment received as personal hospitality at a private residence do not need to be reported.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. United States Code Title 5 – 13104 Contents of Reports Because the statute exempts food and lodging at an individual’s home, justices have accepted luxury travel and accommodations from wealthy friends without disclosure, treating private vacation properties as covered. Whether that reading stretches the exception past its intended scope has driven much of the recent legislative push for reform.
Political Activity
Canon 5 sets stricter and more specific rules than the rest of the Code. A justice cannot serve as a leader or officer of a political organization, speak at events sponsored by a political party or campaign, or publicly endorse or oppose any candidate for public office.1Supreme Court of the United States. Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States They cannot donate to, solicit money for, or buy tickets to events hosted by political organizations or candidates. If a justice decides to run for elected office, they must resign from the bench first.
The line between Canon 4 and Canon 5 matters in practice. A justice can speak at a university event about constitutional history. A justice cannot appear at a political rally, even in a non-speaking role.
How the Code Gets Enforced
It does not, in any formal sense. The Code contains no sanctions, no disciplinary procedures, and no process for investigating complaints against a justice. Compliance is entirely self-policed.
Lower federal judges are covered by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which lets any person file a complaint alleging misconduct by a circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy judge, or magistrate judge. The statute deliberately excludes Supreme Court justices from its definition of “judge.”6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. United States Code Title 28 – 351 Complaints; Judge Defined No formal channel exists for a litigant, a fellow judge, or a member of the public to file an ethics complaint against a sitting justice and trigger an investigation.
Each justice individually decides their own recusal questions, and those decisions cannot be reviewed or reversed by any other authority. The Office of Legal Counsel within the Court provides ethics and financial disclosure guidance, and the Committee on Financial Disclosure reviews each justice’s annual filings. Neither office has authority to compel a justice to recuse or to impose consequences for failing to do so.
Under Article III, justices hold their positions “during good Behavior,” which in practice means for life unless they resign or are removed through impeachment. Only one justice has ever been impeached: Samuel Chase in 1804. The Senate acquitted him in 1805.7Federal Judicial Center. Samuel Chase Impeached No justice has been impeached since. Impeachment remains available in theory, but it requires political will in Congress rather than just evidence of misconduct.
Pending Reform Bills
The gap between the Court’s voluntary code and enforceable rules has produced several bills in Congress. The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act (SCERT Act) would require the Court to adopt a binding code with a complaint process, impose stricter disclosure rules for gifts and travel, and tighten recusal standards. It advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee but has not become law.
In February 2026, Senator Cory Booker and Representatives Daniel Goldman and Hank Johnson introduced the Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act. The bill would create two new offices within the Court: an Office of Ethics Counsel to provide training and advise on recusal and disclosure, and an Office of Investigative Counsel with authority to investigate potential violations and report findings to Congress.8U.S. Senator Cory Booker. Booker, Goldman Introduce Bill to Strengthen Ethics Oversight on the U.S. Supreme Court Neither proposal has been enacted, and whether Congress has the constitutional authority to impose binding procedural rules on the Court is itself a contested question. Until something changes, the 2023 Code is the only written ethical framework governing the justices, and its enforcement rests on their individual willingness to follow it.