Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7692
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-01T16:48:12Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act (H.R. 7692) aims to create structured ethics oversight within the U.S. Supreme Court by establishing two new offices: the Office of Ethics Counsel to provide guidance on ethical matters, and the Office of Investigative Counsel to handle complaints and investigations. This legislation seeks to promote transparency, accountability, and adherence to ethical standards among Supreme Court justices and their families.
Key Provisions
- Office of Ethics Counsel (Section 2):
- Authorized by the Chief Justice; includes a chief ethics counsel (appointed by the Chief Justice) and additional staff.
- Provides advice to justices and their spouses on topics like financial disclosures (reporting income and assets), gifts (items of value like favors or hospitality), political activities (e.g., speaking events or donations), conflicts of interest (situations where personal interests might affect impartiality, leading to recusal or stepping aside from cases), and unauthorized leaks of court documents.
- Staff qualifications: Licensed attorneys with at least 5 years of experience; must be of "exceptional public standing" based on education and training.
- Terms: Chief counsel serves up to two 6-year terms; others similar; minimum salaries set at $225,000 for chief and $180,000 for others.
- Requirements: Biannual ethics training for justices; annual reports to congressional Judiciary Committees detailing advice given, topics covered, and compliance rates (without identifying individuals).
- Definitions: Specifies "gift" broadly (e.g., entertainment, loans) and "political activity" (e.g., fundraisers, endorsements).
- Office of Investigative Counsel (Section 3):
- Authorized by the Chief Justice; led by a chief investigative counsel (appointed by the Chief Justice) with at least two additional counsels.
- Investigates ethics complaints against justices, including actions by their spouses or dependents (minor children or those financially supported).
- Filing: Complaints can only be submitted by top congressional leaders (e.g., Judiciary Committee chairs, House/Senate leaders).
- Process: Within 60 days, review complaint against Supreme Court Code of Conduct, Judicial Code (rules for federal judges), or laws; if warranted, full investigation starts within 15 days.
- Powers: Chief counsel can issue subpoenas (court orders to compel testimony or documents) enforceable by federal district courts; non-compliance can lead to contempt charges (punishment for ignoring court orders).
- Reporting: Submits findings and recommendations (e.g., recusal, selling assets to avoid conflicts) to the Chief Justice (or senior associate justice if Chief is involved); reports shared with congressional committees within 10 days; Chief Justice may publicly release (with redactions for sensitive info); must notify Attorney General of potential federal crimes.
- General Provisions:
- Staff cannot be current Supreme Court employees at enactment.
- Termination only "for cause" (e.g., misconduct, not at-will).
- Severability (Section 4): If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains effective.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends Chapter 45 of Title 28, U.S. Code (on Supreme Court organization) by adding new sections 678 (Ethics Counsel) and 679 (Investigative Counsel).
- Introduces formal ethics infrastructure for the Supreme Court, which previously lacked dedicated internal offices for advice or investigations—relying instead on voluntary codes, self-reporting, or external congressional oversight.
- Grants subpoena authority to an internal court office, a new tool not previously available within the Supreme Court for ethics matters.
- Mandates training, reporting, and structured complaint processes, shifting from informal self-regulation to institutionalized procedures.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Enhances Supreme Court operations with dedicated ethics and investigative resources; increases coordination with Congress (via reports and complaint filings) and the Department of Justice (via crime notifications), potentially straining resources if complaints rise.
- On Citizens: Improves public trust in the judiciary by promoting accountability and transparency; allows indirect public influence through congressional leaders filing complaints, but limits direct access to prevent frivolous claims.
- On International Relations: No direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic judicial ethics.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Supreme Court Justices and Staff: Directly subject to advice, training, investigations, and potential recommendations like recusal or divestment (selling conflicting assets).
- Chief Justice and Senior Justices: Responsible for appointing leaders and receiving/handling reports.
- Congressional Leaders and Committees: Can file complaints and receive annual reports; Judiciary, Oversight, and Homeland Security/Governmental Affairs Committees gain formal access to investigative findings.
- Attorney General and Department of Justice: Notified of potential crimes, enabling federal prosecutions if needed.
- Public and Legal Community: Benefits from increased transparency but has no direct role in filing complaints.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Establishes enforceable subpoena powers and contempt remedies, strengthening investigative tools but raising questions about enforcement against high-level officials; requires adherence to existing codes and laws, potentially leading to more consistent application.
- Constitutional: Balances judicial independence (appointments by Chief Justice, discretionary report release) with accountability (congressional involvement, public disclosure options); severability clause protects the law's core if challenged (e.g., under separation of powers doctrine, as Congress regulates lower courts but Supreme Court oversight is rarer).
- Political: Could politicize ethics probes if complaints are filed along partisan lines by congressional leaders; promotes non-partisan expertise through qualification standards, but annual reports might fuel public or media scrutiny of the Court.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]
Cosponsors (10)
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Ivey, Glenn [D-MD-4], Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1], Rep. Whitesides, George [D-CA-27]
Recent Actions
- 2026-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2026-02-25: Introduced in House
- 2026-02-25: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act — issued 2026-02-25 — PDF (14 pages)