Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Prohibits Supreme Court justices from receiving gifts above a certain value.
The problem
Supreme Court justices face no federal gift restrictions. This creates potential conflicts of interest and raises questions about judicial impartiality and public trust.
The proposal
Establishes gift ban rules for Supreme Court justices similar to restrictions placed on other federal judges and executive branch officials.
The impact
Supreme Court justices would face new limits on accepting gifts. The public and ethics watchdogs would gain clearer standards for judicial conduct.
Gift restrictions show that judges follow ethics rules like other government officials. This helps Americans believe the Supreme Court decides cases fairly, not based on who gave gifts to justices.
Federal judges and cabinet officials already follow gift rules, but Supreme Court justices did not. This bill applies the same standards across the judicial branch, creating consistency.
When justices accept expensive gifts from wealthy donors or interested parties, it can look improper even if no actual wrongdoing occurs. Clear rules prevent these problematic situations.
Restrictions on gifts could limit what justices can receive from friends, family, and organizations. Some argue this infringes on their personal liberty and treats them differently than private citizens.
The bill does not explain who enforces gift rules or what happens if a justice breaks them. Without clear enforcement, the rules may not work well in practice.
If few justices actually receive inappropriate gifts, new rules may be unnecessary. The bill assumes there is a serious gift problem without providing evidence.
Strict gift bans might make it harder for justices to maintain normal friendships and social relationships with people who want to give them occasional gifts.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10764
Executive Settlement Review Act
HR 8352
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
S 32
LACA
HR 10389
Survivor’s Voice Protection Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.