ICYMI Video: Blumenthal Speaks on Senate Floor Calling for Supreme Court Ethics Legislation

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats yesterday in making a unanimous consent request to pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act, sweeping legislation to require Supreme Court justices to adopt a binding code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code of conduct and other laws, improve disclosure and transparency when a justice has a connection to a party or amicus before the Court, and require justices to explain their recusal decisions to the public.

“This Supreme Court is different than any other we’ve seen,” said Blumenthal. “And it’s not just two members of the Supreme Court…It is the institution as a whole that’s responsible, and it is the Chief Justice of the Court that is most responsible.”

Blumenthal continued, “This comprehensive judicial ethics legislation is long overdue, and my biggest regret as I stand on the floor of the Senate today is that it is not bipartisan, because it should be.”

Last month, Blumenthal wrote to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts calling on him to not assign opinions or circuit justiceships to Justices Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas if they decline to recuse themselves from cases relating to January 6^th and the “Stop the Steal” movement. Blumenthal’s letter to Chief Justice Roberts is available here. Blumenthal is also the author of the Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024, which creates an Office of the Inspector General within the Judicial branch, among other provisions. Bill text of S. 4167 is available here.

Video of Blumenthal’s remarks can be found here. A transcript of Blumenthal’s speech is available below.

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal: I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator Whitehouse, I’ve been proud to be part of their team working for the most minimal kind of ethical standards for the highest court in the land. Right now, that court has no enforceable code of conduct, unlike any other court in the federal system, unlike any other branch of government—it is so elemental as a matter of simple ethical conduct and appearance. 

The Supreme Court has squandered its almost mystical authority—its unique power in the federal government. In a sense, that power was not envisioned by the founders. The idea of judicial review came after the Constitution was written. We can thank Justice Marshall for that idea, that the Supreme Court can literally strike down what we do here. It’s the most powerful branch of government, not the least dangerous but the most powerful.

And think of it for a moment: in a democratic republic, it’s unelected, it has life tenure, nobody can tell a justice you’re too old to do this stuff anymore. It is the most anti-democratic or un-democratic institution in a democratic system of government that you could possibly imagine, and so, its power is really dependent on its adherence to standards of integrity that gain respect and credibility. It has no armies. It has no police force. People following those orders that it issues are because its wisdom and integrity have gained respect.

This Supreme Court is different than any other we’ve seen. And it’s not just two members of the Supreme Court because it is the institution as a whole that’s responsible, and it is the Chief Justice of the Court that is most responsible. And so, I ask Chief Justice Roberts, please endorse this legislation. Not just for the sake of your legacy—we know Chief Justice Roberts cares about his legacy—but for the sake of the Court.

This court is doing things—justices are committing errors of extraordinary misjudgment—not to mention corrupt taking of gifts and trips and all the rest, that are, to use my colleague’s words, blowing to smithereens the credibility and trust that this court needs—it needs it for its decisions to be followed and respected.

What we’re doing here is very simply saying to the court you must have a code of conduct that’s enforceable. We’re not telling them what to do. We’re not telling them to decide a case in one way or another. We’re not interfering with their docket. We’re not in any way affecting the substantive decisions of the United States Supreme Court. It is simply how they conduct themselves as public officials—whether they take gifts, whether they go on trips paid for by somebody else, whether they accept tuition grants.

It’s common sense. You don’t need to be a law school graduate to understand it. In fact, this idea is more comprehensible and more impactful to the folks who go to work every day and nobody gives them college tuitions, nobody takes them on private jets to islands that cost thousands of dollars to reach. To the ordinary American, the everyday American, this legislation not only makes sense, I think most people assume there already is legislation like the one we’re debating today.

So, I’m not going to belabor the specific provisions of this bill. I believe we’re going to have to go farther. I think there ought to be an Inspector General for the courts as a part of the judicial conference—just like there is in other government entities. I think there has to be court reform that casts light on the shadow docket. There are a series of reforms, and some are a lot more draconian in their scope. But this act is simple in requiring disclosure rules for gifts, travel, and income that are at least as strict as those we comply with here in Congress, a code of ethics, recusal—and Alito and Thomas should have recused themselves long ago from decisions involving Donald Trump.

This comprehensive judicial ethics legislation is long overdue, and my biggest regret as I stand on the floor of the Senate today is that it is not bipartisan, because it should be. I’ve argued four cases in the United States Supreme Court. I’ve been a law clerk there. I have immense respect, unshakeable respect for the institution—the institution. I have reverence for what it reflects in America. And sadly, the Court has inflicted wounds on itself that will be difficult, and my theory is impossible, to repair. But this measure will at least begin that process.

Thank you, and I yield the floor.

-30-