Supreme Court Code of Ethics: Recusal, Disclosure, Enforcement

The Supreme Court’s code of ethics is a written Code of Conduct the justices adopted on November 13, 2023, organized around five canons that address integrity, the appearance of impropriety, the diligent performance of judicial duties, permissible outside activities, and political conduct.¹ It is the first formal code the Court has ever had. It also contains no enforcement mechanism, which is the source of most of the controversy around it.

Before November 2023, the justices worked from an unwritten mix of statutes, the ethics code that applies to lower federal judges, and Judicial Conference advisory opinions. The new document gathered those scattered principles into one place. It did not add a way to hold anyone to them.

What the Code Requires

The five canons track, with adjustments, the Code of Conduct that has long applied to other federal judges.¹

Canon 1 asks justices to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon 2 tells them to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, and to keep family, social, political, and financial relationships from influencing their judicial decisions. Canon 3 makes judicial duties the priority and requires that they be performed fairly, impartially, and diligently. Canon 4 permits outside activities that remain consistent with the office. Canon 5 restricts political activity.

The first two canons do most of the work in public disputes about the Court. They set the standard against which conduct outside the courtroom, including travel, speeches, and relationships with parties and donors, is measured.

Political Activity and Outside Roles

Canon 5 draws hard lines. A justice cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office, speak at political organization events, or attend partisan fundraisers. Soliciting funds for any political cause or group is also barred.¹

Canon 4 leaves room for teaching, speaking at legal conferences, and participating in work to improve the legal system. The limit is that these activities cannot undermine the dignity of the office or create reasonable doubt about the justice’s impartiality.¹

Financial Disclosure and Gifts

Separate from the code, federal law requires every justice to file an annual financial disclosure report covering income, investments, gifts, and reimbursements. The obligation comes from the Ethics in Government Act, now codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 13101–13111.²

Justices must report any gift worth more than a threshold amount from a single source. That threshold has been $480 since 2023, with a separate $192 floor for aggregating smaller gifts from the same source. The Office of Government Ethics was scheduled to update those figures in 2026, though the adjusted amounts had not yet been published at the time of writing.³

For years, a “personal hospitality” exemption let justices accept food, lodging, and entertainment on a friend’s private property without reporting it. That exemption drove much of the public controversy over undisclosed luxury travel and resort stays. In September 2024, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure narrowed the rule. The updated policy states that personal hospitality does not cover gifts of transportation that substitute for commercial travel, hospitality at properties owned by a business entity rather than an individual, expenses paid or reimbursed by someone other than the host, or hospitality at commercial properties such as resorts. Justices were required to amend past reports back to the 2022 filing year for omitted transportation gifts, while earlier non-compliance was excused on the grounds of what the Conference called “confusion arising from past guidance.”⁴

Filed reports are available through a free searchable database maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.⁵

When a Justice Must Step Aside

Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires any federal judge, justices included, to step away from a case whenever their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.⁶ The statute lists specific triggers:

Personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed facts.
Prior involvement as a lawyer on the matter, participation as counsel or adviser while in government, or having expressed an opinion on the merits.
A financial interest held by the justice, spouse, or minor child living in the household, in a party or in the subject matter of the case, no matter how small.
A close relative who is a party, is acting as a lawyer, or has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome.

The Supreme Court’s recusal calculus differs from every other federal court in one important respect. The code states that a justice “is presumed impartial and has an obligation to sit unless disqualified.”¹ In a lower court, another judge fills in when a colleague steps aside. On the Supreme Court there is no substitute. A recusal drops the bench to eight, and an even split leaves the lower court’s ruling in place with no precedent-setting decision. That reality pushes toward staying on cases a district or circuit judge might leave more readily.

The code does not require a justice to explain a decision to recuse or a decision not to. When a justice sits out, the public usually sees a one-line notation on the order. When a justice declines to recuse despite public calls to do so, there is no formal process for challenging the decision.

Who Enforces the Code

Nobody, in any meaningful sense. There is no office that investigates violations, no panel that hears complaints, and no consequence written into the code for a justice who ignores it.

Every other federal judge is covered by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which lets anyone file a complaint alleging misconduct by a circuit, district, bankruptcy, or magistrate judge. The statute defines “judge” to include those categories only. Supreme Court justices are explicitly outside its reach.⁷

The only constitutional mechanism for removing a justice is impeachment by the House followed by conviction by the Senate. The Constitution guarantees justices their offices “during good behavior,” which in practice is a lifetime appointment, and forbids Congress from reducing their salary as pressure. Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy, and it has never resulted in the removal of a Supreme Court justice.⁸

What is left is a system that depends entirely on each justice to read the code and apply it to their own situation. The Legal Counsel to the Supreme Court can provide advisory opinions, and justices can consult one another informally. Nobody outside the Court can compel a review, and nobody inside is positioned to overrule a colleague’s ethical judgment.¹

Legislation That Would Change This

Several bills have tried to close the enforcement gap. None have become law.

The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act (SCERT Act) was reintroduced as H.R. 3513 in the 119th Congress. It had not advanced beyond introduction as of early 2026.⁹

In February 2026, Representative Dan Goldman and Senator Cory Booker reintroduced the Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act. It would create two new offices within the Court: an Office of Ethics Counsel to advise justices on disclosure and recusal obligations, and an Office of Investigative Counsel to look into alleged violations and report findings to Congress. The bill would also allow members of Congress to submit formal ethics complaints.¹⁰

Both proposals run into the same constitutional problem. Because Article III gives justices lifetime tenure and places the Court at the top of the federal judiciary, any law that subjected justices to review by lower-court judges or an external body raises serious separation-of-powers questions. Congress may have limited tools to enforce judicial ethics beyond impeachment.⁸

1
Supreme Court of the United States. Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
2
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 5 US Code 13104 – Contents of Reports
3
eCFR. 5 CFR 2634.304 – Gifts and Reimbursements
4
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Whitehouse and Johnson Press for Clarity on Judicial Conference’s Updated Financial Disclosure Policy
5
United States Courts. Judiciary Financial Disclosure Reports
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 455 – Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge
7
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 351 – Complaints; Judge Defined
8
Congress.gov. The Supreme Court Adopts a Code of Conduct
9
Congress.gov. Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2025
10
Congressman Daniel Goldman. Goldman, Booker Reintroduce Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act to Restore Accountability and Transparency to the Supreme Court