The Highest Court in the Land Has No Ethics Code. Should That Still Be True?

[Moderator]

The Supreme Court is the final word on what the Constitution means — on voting rights, reproductive rights, executive power, environmental law, religious freedom, and more. Nine people, appointed for life, accountable to no election, bound by no enforceable ethics rules, with no mandatory retirement age. Their decisions shape American life for generations.

That design made a certain kind of sense in 1789. Whether it still makes sense now is a genuine question — and increasingly, a mainstream one.

In recent years, investigative reporting has revealed undisclosed gifts, travel, and financial relationships between sitting justices and wealthy interests with cases before the Court. A draft opinion was leaked. Multiple justices have faced credible accusations of misrepresenting their records during confirmation hearings. And the Court’s approval ratings have reached historic lows — not because people disagree with individual rulings, but because a growing number of Americans question whether the institution itself is operating with integrity.

At the same time, the Court has expanded its own power significantly — taking cases that restructure the relationship between federal agencies and the laws they enforce, and asserting doctrines that give the president broad immunity from prosecution. For an institution with no elections and no ethics enforcement, that’s a lot of unchecked authority.

Reform proposals exist across the political spectrum — and this is one area where the conversation isn’t neatly left vs. right:

• Term limits — 18-year terms with a rotating senior justice model, so every president gets the same number of appointments
• A binding ethics code — with real enforcement, not voluntary guidelines
• Expanding the Court — adding seats to restore balance or reflect population growth
• Jurisdiction stripping — Congress limiting which cases the Court can hear
• Supermajority requirements — requiring more than a 5-4 vote to overturn federal law
• Transparency reforms — mandatory financial disclosure, recusal standards with teeth

None of these are simple. Some require legislation. Some require constitutional amendments. Some have historical precedent — the size of the Court has changed six times in American history. And some raise legitimate concerns about whether the cure is worse than the disease.

The questions worth sitting with:

• Does the Supreme Court, as currently structured, still function as a legitimate check on power — or has it become a political institution that just wears judicial robes?
• Which reform feels most urgent to you, and why? And which ones make you nervous even if you support the general direction?
• What would it actually take — politically, legally, culturally — to move any of this forward? Who has to want it badly enough?
• And the harder question: if we can’t reform the Court through normal channels, what does that tell us about the health of American democracy overall?

There are no perfect answers here, and people who care deeply about the rule of law disagree on the right path. That’s exactly why this conversation needs to happen — out loud, with real people, not just in law review articles.

[Author]

Posts