This is a subject of significant debate and multiple reform proposals, with arguments both for and against stricter prohibitions on financial transactions for Supreme Court justices. While federal law and the Court's own code set disclosure rules, they do not establish a blanket prohibition on all financial transactions with interested parties.
Arguments supporting stricter prohibitions
Preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption: Critics argue that financial deals, gifts, and hospitality from wealthy individuals with interests before the Court create an "appearance of impropriety" that erodes public trust. Canon 2 of the Supreme Court's code states a justice should "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities," but many find the Court's enforcement of its own rules to be weak.
Enforcing consistent standards: Proponents note that Supreme Court justices are not held to the same ethical standards as lower federal court judges, members of Congress, or other federal employees. Members of Congress, for example, have stricter rules on gift acceptance, and many argue justices should be held to at least the same level of scrutiny.
Addressing unique circumstances: The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and its rulings have immense and long-lasting consequences for all Americans. For this reason, some argue that the highest court should have the highest ethical standards, not the lowest.
Mitigating potential bias: Opponents of the status quo believe that receiving significant financial benefits from parties with pending or potential cases could unduly influence a justice's judgment, even if it is not a direct bribe.
Arguments against stricter prohibitions
Preserving judicial independence: Some argue that placing too many restrictions on justices could be seen as an unconstitutional legislative encroachment on the judicial branch, violating the separation of powers. Chief Justice John Roberts has emphasized the judiciary's power to manage its own internal affairs to