Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has publicly voiced her support for an enforceable code of conduct for the U.S. Supreme Court, putting her in contrast with the court's current ethics guidelines, which lack any enforcement mechanism.
The Hill reported that Jackson made her stance clear in a recent interview with CBS News, where she questioned why the nation's highest court should be exempt from stricter regulations that apply to other U.S. courts.
Jackson’s comments come as the Supreme Court faces growing scrutiny over ethical practices, particularly involving the financial activities of its justices.
The U.S. Supreme Court introduced a new code of conduct in November 2023, but it has drawn criticism for being merely advisory.
Unlike the codes that govern lower federal courts, the Supreme Court's guidelines do not have the power to enforce disciplinary actions. This has led to concerns that justices may continue to engage in activities that raise ethical questions without any accountability.
One of the central issues raised by critics involves the outside income justices earn through book deals.
Federal law limits how much justices can make outside their government salaries but permits them to earn substantial sums from book royalties. For example, Justice Jackson received approximately $3 million in advances for her recently published memoir, "Lovely One."
During her interview, Jackson addressed these issues directly. "I don't have any problem with an enforceable code," she stated, suggesting that having clear, enforceable guidelines would align the Supreme Court with other courts across the country. "Is the Supreme Court any different?" she asked, further questioning why the justices should be treated differently from other U.S. judges who follow stricter codes of conduct.
While the court's new code includes provisions like Canon 4A, which allows justices to attend events where their books are sold, and Canon 4G, permitting staff assistance in book promotion, these rules have been met with skepticism.
Critics argue that these guidelines create loopholes that could lead to potential ethical violations. The rules differ from the code governing lower courts, which has prohibited such practices since 1973.
Concerns about the Supreme Court's approach to ethics have only intensified after reports surfaced in July 2023 regarding Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s book promotions. According to the Associated Press, Sotomayor’s staff encouraged event organizers to purchase her book in bulk for speaking events, raising questions about the appropriate use of taxpayer-funded resources.
The Associated Press report highlighted the case of Sotomayor, whose aides reportedly pushed event organizers to buy extra copies of her book, emphasizing that attendees would be disappointed if they were unable to obtain one.
Such actions have fueled the ongoing debate about the ethical boundaries surrounding justices' external activities, particularly when they involve potential financial gain.
Justice Jackson’s memoir promotion, as well as the book deals of other justices such as Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, has drawn further attention to the broader issue of financial transparency in the court.
Although federal law permits book royalties, the fine line between permissible income and activities that may compromise judicial integrity remains under scrutiny.
In addition to concerns over book royalties, the court's recusal rules have also faced criticism.
The current code has been described as weak, allowing justices to decide for themselves whether to step away from cases where they may have conflicts of interest. Without a system for independent enforcement, justices can exploit these ethical gray areas without consequence.
Justice Jackson’s comments come at a pivotal time, as calls for reform within the U.S. Supreme Court have grown louder in recent years. The lack of an enforceable code, coupled with the high-profile financial activities of the justices, has left many questioning whether the current system is sufficient to maintain public trust in the nation’s highest court.
Jackson’s perspective adds to a growing chorus of voices advocating for stronger oversight.
Although book deals are legal, the process by which justices and their staff promote these works, and the use of court resources to support these efforts, raises ethical concerns that many believe the new code fails to address adequately.
The debate over the Supreme Court's ethics code is not only about transparency but also about ensuring that justices adhere to the highest possible standards. For Jackson, an enforceable code is "pretty standard" for courts across the country, and she has yet to see a convincing reason why the Supreme Court should be treated any differently.
The recent remarks from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson have reinvigorated calls for reform in the U.S. Supreme Court’s code of conduct.
With a non-enforceable set of guidelines currently in place, critics argue that the court's ethics standards lag behind those of other federal courts. Jackson's own book deal, alongside those of her colleagues, has spotlighted the broader issues surrounding financial transparency and the ethical obligations of the nation's top justices.
