Dear John,

The Supreme Court answers to no one.

That's not how the Constitution intends it. Congress has a clear role in establishing the structure of the court, but in the absence of term limits, the only way to remove a Supreme Court justice is by impeachment in the House and conviction by two thirds of the Senate.

The only one with any say today in when and how justices must recuse themselves from a case are the justices themselves, with no explanation or justification required. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s proposed Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act corrects this oversight.

Sen. Whitehouse cites the Latin phrase Nemo judex in sua causa, which means, “No one should be a judge in their own case.”

Importantly, this bill elucidates ethical standards and recusal requirements concerning the receipt of gifts or hospitality, and creates a transparent enforcement process involving review either by a panel of randomly selected lower court judges, or by the other SCOTUS justices themselves. Written recommendations and explanations of recusal decisions will be required.

Demand that Congress require transparency and a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court by passing the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act now.

Although the Supreme Court has now proposed its own new code of conduct, it is completely unenforceable. It is only meant to turn down the heat of public pressure on the court without actually making any binding changes whatsoever.

For the first time, the SCERT Act would provide procedures to investigate misconduct of Supreme Court justices, strengthen recusal standards, and require disclosure of travel, hospitality, and conflicts of interest. As Sen. Whitehouse says, “If the Supreme Court isn’t going to do anything to restore the public’s trust, then it’s up to us in Congress.”

You probably don’t really need me to explain why this reform is needed, but let’s look at at least one example anyway: For over a year, Justice Clarence Thomas refused to recuse himself from any cases involving the January 6 insurrection.

Despite revelations that his wife Ginni Thomas was texting Chief of Staff Mark Meadows throughout January 6 urging him to “help this Great President stand firm” -- a fact Justice Thomas must certainly have known about -- he still did not recuse himself. He then went on to be the only justice to vote against granting the January 6 Committee access to communications between the White House and others that day

As Whitehouse notes, this failure of Justice Thomas to recuse himself has never been investigated, and he has never had to explain himself.

It’s time that the Supreme Court stop judging their own conflicts of interest. Demand that Congress bring accountability to the Supreme Court by adding your name now.

Thank you for fighting for real, enforceable reform for the nation’s highest court.

Robert Reich
Inequality Media Civic Action