In a much-anticipated report, recently released by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court appears to have sidestepped any hint of ethics controversies. This report, which was required by law and submitted annually to the Judicial Conference of the United States, is regarded as an important overview of the federal judiciary’s compliance with its ethical and administrative guidelines.
In the report, Chief Justice Roberts noted that all Supreme Court justices—in both their professional and personal capacities—had acted in accordance with judicial ethics during 2019. The Chief Justice stated that this includes upholding the “highest standards of fairness, decorum, and respect in administering justice” in each of their decisions, as well as properly exercising restraint when it comes to participating in extrajudicial activities.
Chief Justice Roberts went on to praise the justices for their continued commitment to ethical behaviour and impartial decision-making which, the report argued, “serves as a pillar of the judicial system”. Roberts also thanked the judiciary staff for their willingness to comply with ethical protocols and their ongoing dedication to upholding the law.
The report highlighted a number of ongoing initiatives that the justices have taken to promote ethics on the bench, such as conducting mandatory professional development sessions, periodically revising the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and making efforts to expand the Supreme Court’s efforts to protect its independence.
While the lack of comment on any ethics controversies may leave some readers of the report disappointed, this particular yearly report serves another purpose. It is an assurance from the highest court in the United States that the justices and judiciary staff are committed to interpreting and applying the law with the utmost integrity.
The court has a duty to ensure the faithful interpretation of the laws of the United States, and this report is one step in that process. Whether or not the report discusses any particular ethical issue, it serves as a reminder of the justices’ commitment to the rule of law.
