HB3513, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2025, would create a formal ethics and conduct framework for the U.S. Supreme Court and expand related ethics requirements for federal judges more broadly. The bill directs the Supreme Court to issue a code of conduct for its justices within 180 days of enactment, and directs the Judicial Conference to issue a similar code for judges of the courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, magistrate judges, and the Court of International Trade. It also requires public access on the Court’s website to ethics rules and related guidance in searchable, downloadable form.
The bill establishes a complaint process for allegations that a Supreme Court justice violated the new code of conduct, federal recusal law, or other applicable law, or otherwise engaged in conduct undermining the Court’s integrity. Complaints would be screened and, if appropriate, investigated by a five-judge judicial investigation panel drawn randomly from circuit chief judges, with authority to hold hearings, take testimony, issue subpoenas, and recommend dismissal, discipline, or rule changes. The bill also tightens gift and disclosure rules for justices and their law clerks, requires more detailed recusal standards, and mandates public notice when a federal judge is disqualified or when a disqualification motion is ruled on.
Beyond the Supreme Court, the bill expands recusal obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 455 by adding disqualification triggers tied to lobbying contacts, substantial support for a judge’s nomination or confirmation, and receipt of gifts, income, or reimbursements from parties or affiliates within a six-year lookback period. It also requires judges to notify parties when a potential disqualification condition arises, creates a process for parties to seek review of certified disqualification motions, and sets up a Supreme Court review mechanism for motions involving a justice. Additional provisions require parties and amici to disclose gifts, reimbursements, lobbying support, and major financial contributors, and require annual studies and reports on compliance with recusal laws and amicus disclosure rules.
The bill’s overall impact would be to significantly increase transparency, disclosure, and enforceable ethics procedures in the federal judiciary, especially at the Supreme Court. It would amend multiple sections of title 28 of the U.S. Code, add new sections governing codes of conduct, complaints, amicus disclosures, and disqualification review, and impose new reporting and auditing duties on the Federal Judicial Center, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Government Accountability Office. It would also create new public-facing notice requirements and potentially broaden the circumstances in which judges must step aside from cases.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, and the bill was only referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Based on the bill text and its sponsor list, the measure appears to be supported by members concerned with judicial ethics, transparency, and recusal standards, while likely facing resistance from those who view it as an intrusion on judicial independence or as imposing burdensome new procedures on the courts. The main points of contention are likely to be the scope of congressional authority over Supreme Court ethics, the breadth of the new recusal triggers, the disclosure obligations for parties and amici, and the use of outside judges to review complaints and disqualification motions involving Supreme Court justices.
The bill would amend title 28 of the U.S. Code to add new ethics, disclosure, recusal, complaint, and review provisions for Supreme Court justices and other federal judges. It would require new codes of conduct, public posting of ethics materials, expanded recusal standards under section 455, mandatory notice of disqualification, disclosure rules for gifts and reimbursements, and new procedures for reviewing disqualification motions and amicus-related conflicts. It also creates recurring study, reporting, and audit requirements for federal judicial bodies and GAO.
The bill’s sponsor list suggests strong support among House Democrats and members focused on ethics reform, transparency, and judicial accountability. Because no hearings, transcripts, or votes are included, there is no recorded committee sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the substance, the measure is likely to be viewed favorably by reform advocates and skeptically by those concerned about separation of powers, judicial independence, and administrative burden.
Likely points of contention include whether Congress can or should impose a formal code of conduct on Supreme Court justices, whether the complaint and investigation process improperly subjects the Court to external oversight, and whether the new recusal triggers are too broad—especially the provisions tied to lobbying contacts, nomination support, and prior gifts or income. Additional controversy may arise over mandatory disclosures by parties and amici, the public reporting of disqualification reasons, and the requirement that outside judges or panels review recusal decisions.