The U.S. Supreme Court’s self-exculpatory ethics code

Under the Supreme Court’s new rules, the justices appear to have committed no wrongdoing. Media source: The New Yorker Media introduction: The New Yorker is a renowned American magazine, first published in 1925. It is celebrated for its in-depth journalism, cultural criticism, short fiction, poetry, and humorous illustrations. Its content spans politics, society, the arts, and more, distinguished by high-caliber writing and rigorous fact-checking. Its distinctive cartoons and cover illustrations—often employing humor and satire—reflect cultural and political traits of New York City and beyond, earning wide admiration and respect from diverse readerships. As one of America’s most influential publications, The New Yorker holds a prominent place in both literary and journalistic circles. Media rating: Last week, the Supreme Court released its first-ever "Code of Conduct for United States Supreme Court Justices." The rules laid out in this document are neither intended to remedy ethical breaches that have already crossed moral boundaries, nor designed to prevent such breaches before they occur. Rather, the document functions as a brief, self-justifying argument endorsing the justices’ ethical conduct—aiming to demonstrate that no violations warranting correction (“learn from mistakes”) ever occurred in the past, and thus none could possibly arise now (“strive for further improvement”). Recent reporting has raised public concern and scrutiny over judicial ethics: Harlan Crow, a wealthy real estate investor, gifted several expensive items to Justice Clarence Thomas; Thomas claimed his conduct complied with existing norms at the time. Hedge fund manager Paul Singer offered Justice Samuel Alito a private flight to Alaska for a vacation—and yet Alito did not recuse himself from cases involving Singer, despite the clear conflict of interest; Alito defended his decision by asserting that “any reasonable person” would not consider this improper. As candidly acknowledged in the preamble to the Court’s new Code of Conduct, the Court believes the public’s understanding of justices’ ethical obligations urgently requires correction. The Code incorporates both longstanding practices justices have always followed and newly introduced provisions crafted specifically to rationalize past ethical controversies. In sum, under this latest Code, the justices’ ethically questionable behaviors reported in recent years are highly unlikely to be deemed violations. The "Code of Conduct" is organized into five core principles, accompanied by detailed explanatory notes. Typically, codes of conduct enumerate prohibited actions—but under Principle Four of this Code, an unusually long list of permitted exceptions appears. These exceptions can be interpreted as encouraging justices to engage in "non-judicial activities" without ethical qualms. For instance, a justice may attend fundraising events hosted by nonprofit organizations—even those unrelated to law—as a speaker or guest, provided the justice does not intentionally serve as the featured speaker, special guest, or “marquee name.” These allowances rationalize Thomas’s repeated appearances at fundraising events organized by the Koch network (note: a deeply entrenched conservative political force composed of billionaire financiers operating across the U.S. political system; see endnote for details). Moreover, the Code narrowly defines what constitutes a "fundraising event," stipulating that only events where proceeds exceed costs—or where donation solicitations are directly tied to the event—qualify as such.

Why do trials generally follow the recusal system?

Procedural fairness is a prerequisite for substantive fairness. Adhering to the recusal system—to prevent unfair outcomes arising from personal bias or emotional influence—is one key measure ensuring procedural fairness.

Alito Says Recusal in Climate Case Is 'Prudent' But Not Required

Sep 30, 2026

US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from a climate lawsuit against Exxon Mobil and peers citing stock holdings. His withdrawal may affect the outcome of similar suits targeting the oil and gas sector.

bloomberg

2026-09-28

US Supreme Court Justice Alito Recuses from Climate Case Involving Oil Companies

2026-09-30

Big Oil Returns to US Supreme Court Over Climate Liability Lawsuits

2026-09-30

Alito Says Recusal in Climate Case Is 'Prudent' But Not Required

2026-10-05

Supreme Court Grapples With Climate Suits Against Oil Companies

Alito Says Recusal in Climate Case Is 'Prudent' But Not Required

FAQ