Bill Overview
Title: Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides for the establishment of a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, judges of the courts of appeals, judges of the district courts, and judges of the Court of International Trade.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4]
Target Audience
Population: People interacting with or affected by the U.S. federal judiciary system
Estimated Size: 336000000
- The bill primarily targets the judiciary system in the United States, including Supreme Court Justices and judges in various levels of the federal court system.
- The insertion of a code of conduct and requirements for recusal and transparency is likely to improve the perception of fairness and impartiality in the judiciary, impacting all parties involved in litigation.
- Litigants, attorneys, and individuals directly interacting with the federal court system will feel a direct impact through potentially quicker and fairer judicial processes.
- Indirectly, the general public will gain trust in the judicial process if they perceive the judiciary as more accountable and transparent.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals who directly engage with the federal judiciary, such as litigants, attorneys, and judges. These groups are small compared to the entire U.S. population, so the budget seems adequate to cover educational and transparency initiatives tailored to them.
- The impact on the broader public's trust in the judiciary is harder to quantify but could be significant, as increased transparency can add to the perceived integrity of legal processes, indirectly influencing overall societal wellbeing.
- The policy's compliance and auditing mechanisms will require strategic budget allocation—it must be enough to create a robust code and ensure adherence without exceeding financial limits.
- Given the wide-ranging potential effects on both trust in the judiciary and the efficiency of legal processes, a mix of direct and indirect interview subjects were selected to reflect diverse perspectives.
Simulated Interviews
Civil Rights Attorney (New York, NY)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this act will hugely improve the effectiveness of the judiciary in handling cases fairly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transparency will help people like me who aren't legal experts but have court dealings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m hopeful that judges will be more impartial with a code of conduct.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Law Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act aligns with my career aspirations for a fairer judicial system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Federal Court Judge (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A code of conduct is vital to maintain trust in our judiciary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Business Owner (Denver, CO)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that can speed up cases and make rulings fairer benefits my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Farmer (Topeka, KS)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't seen this kind of change, but I hope it prevents drawn-out disputes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected, but I’m glad to see transparency in government institutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Public Defender (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A uniform code of conduct should make trials more consistent and just.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Corporate Lawyer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 49 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This can invigorate the process and lighten the procedural load, which benefits clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The initial setup costs are offset by potential long-term savings due to reduced legal disputes and increased operational efficiency in the judiciary.
- The policy is likely to enhance public confidence in the judiciary, which while hard to quantify, can have significant socio-political benefits.