Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023
Impact
The bill is poised to significantly influence existing federal judicial ethics frameworks. By requiring the establishment of a formal code of conduct, SB359 introduces a higher level of scrutiny and procedural rigor to the ethical obligations of Supreme Court justices. These amendments to Title 28 of the United States Code affect how justices disclose gifts and income, potentially reshaping the operational landscape in terms of judicial recusal and public trust. The updates aim to prevent scenarios where justices may be swayed or influenced by external factors, ensuring decisions are made with the integrity expected of the highest court in the nation.
Summary
SB359, known as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023, aims to establish a formal code of conduct for justices of the Supreme Court. This bill mandates the Supreme Court to issue a code of conduct within 180 days post-enactment, ensuring ethical behavioral standards are adhered to by justices. Additionally, the legislation seeks to enhance transparency around potential conflicts of interest by instituting strict rules on disclosure regarding gifts and income received by justices. It also proposes annual audits to ensure compliance with these new standards, reinforcing the principle of accountability within the judiciary system.
Sentiment
Sentiment surrounding SB359 is notably polarized among legislators and the public. Advocates of the bill argue that it is a necessary step towards enhancing accountability and maintaining the integrity of the judicial system against perceptions of impropriety. They contend that such regulations would restore trust in the judiciary, which is essential for its legitimacy. Conversely, opponents express concerns that the bill may infringe upon judicial independence and could lead to excessive governmental interference in the judiciary. There are fears that the heightened scrutiny could deter capable candidates from pursuing positions on the Supreme Court due to the burden of increased ethical regulations.
Contention
Key points of contention revolve around the repercussions of imposing a mandatory ethical code and the transparency requirements set forth in the bill. Critics argue that the regulations may not account for the unique nature of judicial duties and could complicate genuine judicial processes, leading to unnecessary withdrawals from cases. Additionally, there are concerns about the implications of public access to internal ethical rules and whether that could lead to partisan manipulation of the judiciary. Opponents closer to the political left often express apprehension about how such disclosure requirements could deter engaged, politically active jurists from serving.
Regulatory Accountability Act This bill expands and provides statutory authority for notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures to require federal agencies to consider (1) whether a rulemaking is required by statute or is within the discretion of the agency, (2) whether existing laws or rules could be amended or rescinded to address the problem, and (3) reasonable alternatives to a new rule. For proposed major or high-impact rules that have a specified significant economic impact or adverse effect on the public health or safety, an agency must publish notice of such rulemaking to invite interested parties to propose alternatives and ideas to accomplish the agency's objectives; allow persons interested in high-impact or certain major rules to petition for a public hearing with oral presentation, cross-examination, and the burden of proof on the proponent of the rule; adopt the rule that maximizes net benefits within the scope of the statutory provision authorizing the rule, unless the agency explains the costs and benefits that justify adopting an alternative rule and such rule is approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); and publish a framework and metrics for measuring the ongoing effectiveness of the rule. Agencies must notify OIRA with certain information about a proposed rulemaking, including specified discussion and preliminary explanations concerning a major or high-impact rule. Further, OIRA must establish certain rulemaking guidelines. Additionally, the bill (1) revises the scope of judicial review of agency actions, and (2) establishes requirements for agencies issuing guidance.