Bill Overview
Title: Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes various changes to the federal framework governing judicial ethics. Among the changes, the bill prohibits federal judges and Supreme Court Justices from owning individual stocks and securities; requires the Judicial Conference of the United States to issue regulations restricting the solicitation or acceptance of gifts in connection with a private judicial seminar; expresses the sense of Congress that the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges shall apply to Supreme Court Justices; requires federal judges and Supreme Court Justices to report on each association or interest that would require recusal, including any financial interest of a spouse or minor child who resides in the household; and establishes a committee to review complaints against the Supreme Court.
Sponsors: Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
Target Audience
Population: People working closely with or as federal judges and Supreme Court Justices
Estimated Size: 7500
- The bill targets federal judges and Supreme Court Justices, affecting how they manage their financial interests and interactions with external parties.
- Changes in policies regarding stocks, securities, gifts, and reporting will directly impact judges' and justices' personal and financial lives.
- Ethical guidelines and restrictions imposed by these changes aim to enhance transparency and trust in the judiciary system.
- Indirectly, the bill impacts the general public by aiming to ensure judicial impartiality and integrity.
- The bill may also affect judicial clerks and administrative staff who support judges in managing their financial disclosures and compliance with new regulations.
Reasoning
- The Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act of 2022 mainly targets a small but significant group of individuals: federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, their clerks, and related support staff.
- The policy primarily affects their financial transactions and ethical guidelines. Thus, its direct impact is concentrated on their personal and professional conduct but aims to have longer-lasting effects on public trust in the judiciary as a whole.
- Given the small size of the targeted population (approximately 7,500 individuals), the budget is reasonable to manage the implementation and monitoring of the policy's provisions.
- Since the policy's long-term objectives include increasing trust and transparency, indirect impacts may spread out to the general public's perception of the judicial system.
Simulated Interviews
Federal Judge (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These restrictions could complicate financial management for me, but I agree on the importance of maintaining judicial impartiality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Judicial Clerk (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support these changes. They align with my views on ethics, although it might mean more paperwork for me.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Federal Judge (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ethics in the judiciary is crucial, but implementation should not be cumbersome for already burdened judges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Federal Judge Assistant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel neutral about the changes. They primarily affect the judge I work with, but there might be more compliance duties for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ethical rules are positive. This kind of federal focus sets a good example for state-level judicial ethics as well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
District Court Judge (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this requires more disclosure, it's a necessary step for public trust. I’m okay with it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Law Clerk for a Supreme Court Justice (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m glad to see these changes. It feels like I’m part of something significant, enhancing ethical standards for the highest court.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Supreme Court Justice (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This places additional checks on us, but I understand its necessity for public reassurance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Judicial Ethics Reviewer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new rules provide a clearer framework which should make my job more straightforward and impactful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Federal Prosecutor (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes should help bolster public trust, which will help in my work when arguing cases related to judicial conduct.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $14000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $17000000)
Year 3: $13000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $16000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Compliance with new rules will require significant changes in existing systems for financial disclosure and ethics compliance.
- Training and resources for judges could be critical to maintain functionality and prevent any hindrances in judicial operational efficiency.
- Monitoring and evaluation of the policy will be crucial to manage ongoing costs and assess the effective reduction of ethical breaches.