Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act

Bill Number: S. 3914
Origin Chamber: Senate
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 2
Policy Area: Law
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2026-02-25: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Last Updated: 2026-07-01T16:48:13Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act (S. 3914) aims to enhance ethical oversight within the U.S. Supreme Court by creating two new internal offices: the Office of Ethics Counsel to provide guidance on judicial ethics, and the Office of Investigative Counsel to review and investigate ethics complaints against justices. This legislation seeks to promote transparency, accountability, and adherence to ethical standards for Supreme Court justices, their spouses, and dependents.

Key Provisions

Office of Ethics Counsel (Section 2):
Established within the Supreme Court, authorized by the Chief Justice.
Led by a chief ethics counsel (appointed by the Chief Justice; serves up to two 6-year terms; minimum salary $225,000) who can hire additional counsels (appointed by the chief; up to two 6-year terms; minimum salary $180,000).
All counsels must be licensed attorneys with at least 5 years of experience and exceptional qualifications; cannot be current Court employees at enactment; removable only "for cause" (e.g., misconduct).
Provides advice to justices and their spouses on ethics topics, including financial disclosures (reporting personal finances to avoid conflicts), gifts (items of value like favors or entertainment), political activity (e.g., speeches, fundraisers, or endorsements), conflicts of interest (situations where personal interests might bias decisions), recusal (stepping aside from cases due to bias), and unauthorized leaks of Court documents.
Requires biannual ethics training for all justices.
Submits annual reports to congressional Judiciary Committees on advice given, topics covered, recommendations (e.g., recusal or divestiture—selling assets to eliminate conflicts), and instances where advice was ignored.

Office of Investigative Counsel (Section 3):
Also established within the Supreme Court, authorized by the Chief Justice.
Led by a Chief Investigative Counsel (appointed by the Chief Justice; one 6-year term; minimum salary $225,000) with at least two additional counsels (appointed by the chief; serve at chief's pleasure; minimum salary $180,000).
Counsels must be licensed attorneys with at least 7 years of experience and exceptional qualifications; cannot be current Court employees at enactment; chief removable only "for cause."
Investigates ethics complaints against justices, including actions by their spouses or dependents, for violations of the Supreme Court's Code of Conduct, the broader Judicial Code of Conduct (ethical rules for federal judges), or relevant laws.
Complaints can only be filed by top congressional leaders (e.g., Judiciary Committee chairs/ranking members, Senate Majority/Minority Leaders, House Speaker/Minority Leader).
Review process: Within 60 days, decide if a full investigation is warranted; respond to all complaints; if approved, investigation starts within 15 days.
Grants subpoena power to the Chief Investigative Counsel to compel testimony or documents nationwide, enforceable by federal district courts (with contempt penalties for non-compliance).
Submits reports with findings and recommendations (e.g., recusal, divestiture) to the Chief Justice (or senior associate justice if Chief is the subject); Chief Justice may publicly release reports (with redactions for sensitive info); reports automatically shared with key congressional committees within 10 days.
Requires notifying the Attorney General of any potential federal crimes uncovered.

General Provisions:
Amends Chapter 45 of Title 28, U.S. Code (which covers Supreme Court administration).
Includes a severability clause (Section 4): If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains effective.
Defines key terms like "gift" (broadly includes gratuities, loans, or services with monetary value) and "political activity" (e.g., political events or donations).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Introduces entirely new entities (Sections 678 and 679 in Title 28) not previously in U.S. Code, filling a gap in formal ethics infrastructure for the Supreme Court, which currently relies on voluntary codes without dedicated investigative or advisory offices.
Shifts from self-regulation by justices to structured, independent oversight with external input (congressional complaint filing) and enforcement tools (subpoenas).
Mandates training, reporting, and potential public disclosure, contrasting with the Court's prior lack of required ethics education or transparency mechanisms.
Prohibits appointing current Court employees to leadership roles, ensuring fresh perspectives.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: Increases congressional oversight through complaint filing and report access, potentially straining relations between branches; empowers the Attorney General for criminal referrals; adds administrative burden to the Supreme Court for staffing and operations.
On Citizens: Enhances public trust in the judiciary by promoting accountability and transparency (e.g., public reports could reveal ethics issues); may deter misconduct but could lead to more politicized scrutiny of Court decisions.
On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though improved U.S. judicial ethics could bolster America's global image as a rule-of-law leader.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Supreme Court Justices and Staff: Directly subject to advice, training, investigations, and potential recommendations like recusal or divestiture; spouses and dependents included in scope.
Chief Justice and Senior Justices: Responsible for establishing offices, appointing leaders, and deciding on report releases; Chief Justice could face investigations handled by others.
Congressional Leaders and Committees: Gain authority to file complaints and receive reports, influencing ethics probes without direct control.
Public and Advocacy Groups: Benefit from potential transparency but may file indirect influence through Congress; no direct public filing allowed.
Attorneys and Legal Experts: Eligible for high-salary roles in the offices, drawing from external talent pools.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Introduces subpoena enforcement akin to congressional or executive branch powers, potentially leading to court challenges on scope or procedure; emphasizes remedies short of impeachment (the Constitution's main tool for removing justices), focusing on internal corrections.
Constitutional: Raises separation of powers questions, as congressional complaint initiation and report sharing could be seen as legislative interference in judicial independence; the severability clause mitigates risks by preserving viable parts if challenged (e.g., under Article III, which protects judicial tenure).
Political: May heighten partisanship, given complaint filers are political figures, risking investigations tied to ideological disputes; neutral in design but could affect Court legitimacy if perceived as targeting specific justices; reflects ongoing debates on judicial ethics post-recent controversies, without altering lifetime appointments or impeachment processes.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]

Cosponsors (5)

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT], Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI], Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA], Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

Recent Actions

2026-02-25: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
2026-02-25: Introduced in Senate

Bill Versions

Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act — issued 2026-02-25 — PDF (14 pages)