Every federal judge in the United States is bound by a written and enforceable code of conduct. Every judge, that is, except those who sit on the Supreme Court. More than a year after the court adopted a code of conduct for itself — a historic first — critics argue the code lacks a critical element: enforcement. Now, the American Bar Association has renewed its efforts to change that.

The Code Without Consequences

On Nov. 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted its code of conduct for justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. While modeled after the code of conduct for U.S. judges, which provides guidance on judicial integrity, independence and diligence, the Supreme Court code differs in one fundamental respect: it lacks any mechanism for enforcement.

Since its adoption, scholars and practitioners have continued to advocate for the court to implement an enforcement mechanism. That effort gained momentum Feb. 3, 2025, when the ABA’s House of Delegates adopted Resolution 203. Submitted by the New York State Bar Association and co-sponsored by the King County Bar Association in Washington state, Resolution 203 calls for the court to adopt a binding and enforceable ethics code and urges other bar associations to follow suit.

Importantly, Resolution 203 emphasizes that this is not a partisan issue, nor an attack on any individual justice. Rather, it is a matter of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. As the resolution states, “the Supreme Court itself has emphasized that public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the courts is a bedrock principle of the rule of law.”

The ABA’s involvement in this issue reflects its long-standing role as the voice of the organized bar. As a professional association that draws from every corner of the legal community—across practice areas, geographies and perspectives—the ABA is uniquely positioned to speak with both breadth and balance. Its resolutions carry weight precisely because they are the product of debate and consensus among lawyers of differing views. That gives its pronouncements, including Resolution 203, the character of reasoned and democratic advocacy rather than partisan appeal. In this case, the ABA's call for an enforceable judicial ethics code reflects the legal profession's shared investment in the integrity of our courts.

A Legacy of Judicial Ethics

The resolution also makes clear that concern about judicial impartiality is hardly new. Its historical overview stretches back to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which included a judicial oath requiring all judges and Justices to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich” and to “faithfully and impartially” discharge the duties of the office. The principle of impartiality is also embedded in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Over the centuries, Congress has enacted and amended legislation to promote and preserve judicial ethics.

Among the milestones noted in the resolution: 28 U.S.C. Section 455, enacted in 1948, was the first federal disqualification statute to explicitly apply to Supreme Court justices. It required judges to recuse themselves in situations where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned—a standard that still governs today. In 1978, Congress enacted the Ethics in Government Act, requiring judicial officers (including Supreme Court justices) to disclose certain types of income, gifts and reimbursements.

While the Supreme Court code may be newly adopted, the national commitment to judicial ethics is anything but. The ABA’s resolution builds on this legacy while outlining areas for improvement.

First, the resolution recommends limiting the value of gifts to Justices and requiring the disclosure of social hospitality gifts valued over $480 — the current reporting threshold for other gifts. Second, it calls attention to the code’s failure to expressly acknowledge the court’s obligation to comply with Section 455. And third, it calls for the creation of an enforcement mechanism—the most significant and, likely, the most controversial recommendation.

A Framework for Accountability

The resolution offers one possible framework. Under the proposed model, a judicial investigation panel composed of five federal judges would be tasked with reviewing complaints of misconduct by Supreme Court justices. This panel would issue annual reports to the court and refer appropriate complaints for investigation to the court’s Office of Inspector General. Based on the Inspector General’s findings, the panel would then determine whether an ethical violation warranting recusal had occurred.

Though not without potential challenges, this framework signals a serious attempt to make the code meaningful — not merely symbolic. And the ABA is not alone in calling for reform. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee’s courts panel have expressed support for Resolution 203 and urged the Supreme Court to adopt a binding and enforceable code of ethics. The King County Bar Association adopted a similar measure, Resolution 400, and encouraged other bar associations to pass their own versions. On Feb. 14, 2025, the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on courts, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, and the internet sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts aligning itself with the ABA’s call.

Since the code was adopted in 2023, the country has seen sweeping political change, including the election of a new president. At the same time, public trust in the judiciary remains under strain, and the legal profession continues to face scrutiny. Resolution 203 has reignited serious discussion around judicial accountability at the highest level.

At this moment in our legal history, the question looms large: why should the nine justices of the Supreme Court remain the only judges in the federal system not subject to an enforceable code of conduct? Resolution 203 answers that question with clarity: they shouldn’t. If adopted, a binding and enforceable ethics code would reinforce public trust in the judicial system—a goal as urgent today as at any point in the nation’s history.

Reprinted with permission from the April 18, 2025 issue of The Legal Intelligencer© 2025 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.