Rep. Johnson Pushes Passage of SCERT Act In Supreme Court Whistleblower Hearing
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Hank Johnson (GA-04) pushed for passage of H.R. 7647, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act during a House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled, “Undue Influence: ‘Operation Higher Court’ and Politicking at SCOTUS.”
The hearing followed a bombshell report by The New York Times that exposed how a group of conservative activists coordinated to befriend, indulge, and influence Supreme Court justices. The committee heard testimony from whistleblower Rev. Robert Schenck, who was the subject of the Times reporting. Reverend Schenck told the committee about how his decades-long influence campaign, aimed specifically at Supreme Court justices, successfully and intentionally exploited the high court’s lack of meaningful ethics and transparency rules.
“What these reports show is nothing less than systemic corruption at the Supreme Court,” said Rep. Johnson. “From time immemorial, the Court’s mantra has been: ‘just trust us.’ It’s clear from these leaks, lack of recusals, conflicts of interest and naked activism from the bench – they cannot be left to police themselves.”
Rep. Johnson is chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. The SCERT Act will require justices of the Supreme Court to adopt and follow a code of ethics, raise transparency standards on gifts and travel, update recusal standards and rules and require disclosure lobbying and dark money interests before the Court. The bill was reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee in May; Rep. Johnson remains hopeful it will receive a full floor vote before the end of the 117th Congress.
The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act (H.R. 7647) will:
• Require justices of the Supreme Court to write and enforce a code of conduct.
• Require justices adhere to—at minimum—the same gift/travel/income disclosure standards as members of Congress.
Recusal reforms aimed at the recent ethics scandals:
o Lobbying on the judge or justice’s behalf: Recusal would be required if a party or affiliate lobbied or spent substantial funds to get the justice/judge confirmed.
o Giving the judge or justice income, gifts, or reimbursements: Recusal would be required if the justice/judge or spouse or minor child or a privately held entity under their control received income/gifts/reimbursements from a party or affiliate in the case within 6 years of the judge being assigned to the case.
o Duty to know: Impose a clear duty for the judge/justice to know their and their family’s financial interests and interests that could be substantially affected by case before them.
o Duty to notify: Require the judge/justice to inform the parties of any circumstances that could reasonably require recusal.
o Review by other justices and judges: Ensures that the full Court can protect the integrity of its own proceedings by creating a path for full-Court consideration of a recusal motion. For lower courts, ensures that recusal motions can be considered by a randomly selected panel drawn from across the judiciary.
o Public notice: Requires brief explanations of judges’ recusal decisions to be posted online.
Disclosure of lobbying, gifts, and payments by parties:
• Requires the Court to issues rules requiring all parties and amici to list any lobbying or substantial expenditures in support of the justice’s nomination, confirmation, or appointment; and any gifts, income, or reimbursements made to the justices within two years of the start of the proceeding.
• Dark money amicus disclosure: Requires parties that file amicus briefs to disclose their major sources of funding and authorizes the courts to strike amicus briefs that would require a judge to recuse.
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr.
House Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on “Undue Influence: ‘Operation Higher Court’ and Politicking at the Supreme Court”
Dec. 8, 2022, at 12 PM
2141 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Good morning, everyone. I want to thank Chairman Nadler for holding this important hearing on such short notice. I also want to thank the witnesses, particularly Rev. Schenck, for being here with us today. For years I have been warning about an ethical crisis at the Supreme Court. I have introduced legislation to address it—more than one piece of legislation. I have chaired hearings on it in my Courts Subcommittee—more than one hearing. I have spoken about it on television, online, in person, to news anchors, experts, and activists.
I have been raising the alarm.
And after almost two Congresses, here’s where we are: 2022 has seen more scandals, of greater magnitude, seeping out from One First Street than in any other single year in recent memory.
Yet what has been done? Unfortunately, we haven’t seen action from the Supreme Court itself. Certainly, they have every reason to want to address this. Their job approval rating is the lowest it’s been in the Court’s entire history. Record numbers of Americans think the Court is too powerful, too partisan, and far too unaccountable. And public opinion matters to the Court because it is the public who must respect and abide by the Court’s decisions, especially ones they may disagree with.
That the Court itself is unwilling to hold itself to standards equal even to those for lower-court judges, Members of Congress, and the executive branch makes matters worse. It took pressure from Congressional appropriators just to get the Court to admit it was even considering an ethics code. That was three years ago. I’d say it’s been only silence since then, but that would not be true; it’s been scandals, it’s been speeches behind closed doors, it’s been secret dinners with secret donors.
The Court either cannot or will not do this on its own—so we must step in. The Constitution—and the American people, for that matter—have entrusted this body to make the laws necessary to preserve the national wellbeing. A nation whose highest court was secretly and successfully infiltrated for over two decades by activists wining and dining their way to the legal outcomes they want is not the hallmark of a healthy nation.
The answer here is not revolutionary: impose a written code of ethics, require justices to report more gifts more often, and ensure the justices are not deciding cases for their friends and families. My Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, H.R. 7647, would do all of this. We must enact it this Congress.
I have every expectation that what we hear today will reinforce the already strong case for serious ethics reform at the Supreme Court. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the dais to hear this testimony in the appropriate context: as only the most recent of the Court’s many ethical lapses. I hope you will be moved to stand up, do your constitutional duty, and do what we must do to keep our nation healthy and strong not only in the short term but for the next 250 years.
Again, I thank all the witnesses for being here today, especially Rev. Schenck for shining a bright light on the need for Supreme Court ethics reform. Thank you, and I yield back.
###