The Supreme Court’s excuses for ethics violations insult our intelligence; The Hill, July 25, 2023

 STEVEN LUBET, The Hill; The Supreme Court’s excuses for ethics violations insult our intelligence

"The three justices’ hollow rationalizations display a patronizing expectation that the public will ultimately buy whatever they say, no matter how implausible. 

But to paraphrase the late Justice Robert Jackson: Supreme Court justices do not get the last word because they are infallible; they only believe themselves infallible because they get the last word. When it comes to judicial ethics, that has to change."

The Supreme Court makes almost all of its decisions on the 'shadow docket.' An author argues it should worry Americans more than luxury trips.; Insider, July 7, 2023

Erin Snodgrass, Insider; The Supreme Court makes almost all of its decisions on the 'shadow docket.' An author argues it should worry Americans more than luxury trips.

"The decisions made on the shadow docket are not inherently biased, Vladeck said, but the lack of transparency stokes legitimate concerns about the court's politicization and polarization, especially as the public's trust in the institution reaches an all-time low.

"Even judges and justices acting in good faith can leave the impression that their decisions are motivated by bias or bad faith — which is why judicial ethics standards, even those few that apply to the Supreme Court itself, worry about both bias and the appearance thereof," Vladeck writes.

The dangers posed by the shadow docket are more perilous than the wrongs of individual justices, Vladeck argues, because the shadow docket's ills are inherently institutional." 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts gives an incomplete history lesson on judicial ethics; NBC News, January 4, 2022

Steven Lubet, Williams Memorial Professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, NBC News ; Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts gives an incomplete history lesson on judicial ethics

In his end of the year report, Roberts' argument for the court's independence from oversight omitted a key part of its history.

"His comments come amid increased calls for the Supreme Court to be subject to a code of ethics, like all other U.S. courts. As chief justice, though, Roberts has consistently defended the court’s refusal to adopt one, rejecting all suggestions of congressional or other oversight. His referring to Taft’s support for judicial independence seems to bolster that argument. But the story Roberts presented is oddly incomplete, omitting a crucial aspect of Taft’s legacy: Taft also believed that judges should be accountable for their conduct according to ethical standards developed outside the judiciary – a proposition that Roberts has politely but firmly rejected...

Another financial scandal, resulting in the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in 1969, spurred the ABA to re-examine the by-then-antiquated canons. The ABA promulgated the much-strengthened Code of Judicial Conduct in 1972. The Judicial Conference of the United States, with authority over the lower federal courts, officially adopted the code in 1973, as did every state judiciary in the following years. Though the code itself doesn’t include penalties, violations can lead to discipline in some circumstances.

That progress stopped at the Supreme Court steps. The Supreme Court has declined for over 50 years to adopt the Judicial Conference code, or any other, making it the only court in the U.S.without a formal set of ethics rules."

In a year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasizes judicial ethics; NPR, December 31, 2021

ERIC MCDANIEL , NPR; In a year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasizes judicial ethics

"U.S. courts need to do more to ensure compliance with ethics rules — including rules that preclude a judge from presiding over cases in which he or she has a financial interest, Chief Justice John Roberts says in a year-end report on the federal judiciary.

Roberts was responding, in part, to an investigation by The Wall Street Journal which found that between 2010 and 2018, 131 federal judges ruled in cases involving companies in which they or their families owned shares of stock. 

Roberts said that while those amount to "less than three hundredths of one percent of the 2.5 million civil cases filed in the district courts" during that period, the federal judiciary must take the matter seriously.

"We are duty-bound to strive for 100% compliance because public trust is essential, not incidental, to our function," he wrote."

Alabama Chief Justice To Face Trial For Barring Same-Sex Marriage; Huffington Post, 8/9/16

Daniel Marans, Huffington Post; Alabama Chief Justice To Face Trial For Barring Same-Sex Marriage:

"A court has decided that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore will face trial in September for violating judicial ethics after he ordered state judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses early this year.

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, which has the final say on complaints against state judges, rejected Moore’s motion to dismiss the charges on Monday, paving the way for a trial, AL.com reported.

Moore is widely expected to be found guilty and removed from the Alabama Supreme Court as a result. The Court of the Judiciary did, however, reject a motion by the state’s Judicial Inquiry Commission to remove him from the bench right away."

Justices’ Opinions Grow in Size, Accessibility and Testiness, Study Finds; New York Times, 5/4/15

Adam Liptak, New York Times; Justices’ Opinions Grow in Size, Accessibility and Testiness, Study Finds:

"The court used to be a more decorous institution. A new computer analysis of about 25,000 Supreme Court opinions from 1791 to 2008 identified three trends that have transformed the court’s tone. The justices’ opinions, the study found, have become longer, easier to understand — and grumpier.

The judicial-ethics decision was a good example of all three trends. It was simultaneously sprawling, accessible and testy...

The new study, to be published next year in the Washington University Law Review, is the work of Daniel Rockmore and Keith Carlson, computer scientists at Dartmouth College, and Michael A. Livermore, a law professor at the University of Virginia. It is part of a cottage industry of quantitative analysis of Supreme Court opinions using linguistic software.

The era of big data has yielded some uncontroversial findings about the Supreme Court."

[Editorial] Judicial Ethics and the Supreme Court; New York Times, 1/5/12

[Editorial] New York Times; Judicial Ethics and the Supreme Court:

"It is not enough for the justices to rely on their own “constant vigilance and good judgment,” as Chief Justice Roberts contends. It is disingenuous for him to claim that “no compilation of ethical rules can guarantee integrity” when no code currently applies to the court. Adopting a conduct code would clarify the rules that apply to the justices and greatly bolster public confidence in the court."