Latest action: Referred to the House 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
Requires Supreme Court justices to follow ethics rules, disclose finances, and explain recusal decisions.
The problem
Supreme Court justices are not bound by the same ethics code as other federal judges. Questions have arisen about financial disclosures, potential conflicts of interest, and reasons for recusal decisions.
The proposal
The bill would require Supreme Court justices to follow federal ethics rules, publicly disclose financial information, and explain their decisions to recuse themselves from cases.
The impact
Supreme Court justices would face new transparency and ethics requirements. The public and Congress would have more information about potential conflicts of interest affecting Court decisions.
Justices would disclose financial holdings and potential conflicts of interest. This allows the public to understand factors that might influence Court decisions. Greater transparency can increase confidence in the judicial system.
All federal judges follow ethics rules, but Supreme Court justices currently do not. This bill would make the Supreme Court follow the same standards as lower courts. It creates fairness and consistency across the judiciary.
Justices would have to explain why they remove themselves from cases. Transparency about recusal reasons helps the public understand judicial independence. It shows whether decisions are based on law or personal interests.
Public financial disclosures create accountability for justices. Citizens and Congress can identify potential problems before cases are decided. This strengthens institutional trust in the Supreme Court.
Requiring justices to follow ethics codes could be seen as Congress controlling the judiciary. The Supreme Court is meant to be independent from the other branches. Strict rules might undermine that independence.
The Supreme Court has traditionally set its own ethical standards. Having Congress impose ethics rules on judges raises constitutional questions. The Court may argue this violates separation of powers.
It is unclear who would enforce ethics rules against Supreme Court justices. No authority is higher than the Supreme Court to punish violations. Enforcement mechanisms might be ineffective or create new conflicts.
Detailed financial disclosures could expose justices' personal and family information. Justices might argue these requirements are overly burdensome. Public financial data could create security or privacy risks.
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 10783
Speak Your Truth Act
HR 10764
Executive Settlement Review Act
HR 8352
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
S 32
LACA
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
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS
via LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS
…rted legislation to expand and rebalance the Supreme Court. Supported H.R. 3513, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2025.
Q3 2025 total
all issues
COMMON CAUSE
via COMMON CAUSE
…ers from Owning Securities and Investments (Rep. Alford, 1 cosponsor) HR 3513, Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act (Rep. Hank Johnson, 32 cosponsors) HR 3544, Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retire…
Q4 2025 total
all issues
Firms whose LDA filings mention this bill. One filing covers many bills — read as disclosed interest, not confirmed lobbying on this bill alone. Dollar amounts are each filer's total reported lobbying money for that reporting period across every issue in the filing. No public data breaks lobbying spending out by bill, so none of these figures is the amount spent on this bill.
Verify these filings on the Senate LDA database