Supreme Court finally gets ethics rules—and a way to challenge biased justices

What it does

This bill requires the Supreme Court to adopt a written code of conduct for justices (currently it has none), establish a complaint process for ethics violations, and expand recusal rules to cover lobbying contacts and financial relationships with parties to cases. It also mandates public disclosure of gifts and financial interests, requires parties and amicus filers to disclose financial ties to justices, and creates an independent judicial panel to review disqualification motions. The bill aims to bring Supreme Court ethics rules in line with standards already applied to lower federal judges.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is to impose ethics, transparency, and recusal standards on Supreme Court justices—a governance and accountability measure, not a market intervention or commemorative act. It extends existing lower-court standards upward.

What the text implies

• The 6-year lookback for financial conflicts (section 4(a)(7)) is broader than the current standard for lower judges and may disqualify justices from cases involving parties they had financial ties to years before the case arose.
• The lobbying-contact trigger (section 4(a)(6)) requires justices to recuse if a party or affiliate made ANY lobbying contact in support of the justice's nomination—a low threshold that could affect many cases involving large corporations or advocacy groups active during confirmation.
• Amicus disclosure rules (section 7) require disclosure of funders contributing ≥3% of annual revenue or >$100k—potentially exposing the funding networks of think tanks, nonprofits, and advocacy organizations filing briefs, which may chill participation.
• The judicial investigation panel (section 2(b)) is composed of circuit court judges reviewing Supreme Court justices, creating a novel hierarchical accountability structure that may face constitutional questions about judicial independence.
• Public disclosure of disqualification reasons (section 4(f)) could reveal sensitive information about justices' financial holdings or personal relationships, even with redaction authority.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens gain enforceable ethics rules, transparency into judicial conflicts, and a formal complaint mechanism for Supreme Court justices—protections that currently do not exist. The bill does not restrict citizens' rights or remedies; it restricts justices' conduct and self-dealing. Lower courts already operate under these standards; the bill extends them to the Supreme Court.

Named in the bill

Supreme Court of the United States, Judicial Conference of the United States, Chief Justice of the United States, Counselor to the Chief Justice, Federal Judicial Center, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Comptroller General of the United States, Circuit courts, District courts, Court of International Trade, Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

Where it stands

96 cosponsors: 96 Democrats.

• May 20, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• May 20, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $402,577 in lobbying spend. A filing names 48 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Hank Johnson, the sponsor, reported $337,917 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• League of Conservation Voters — $230,000 on 1 filing
• Public Citizen — $172,577 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.