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: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices
Estimated Size: 4500
- The bill impacts judicial ethics, focusing on judges and justices within the federal judiciary system, including the Supreme Court.
- By prohibiting ownership of individual stocks and securities, all federal judges and Supreme Court Justices are directly affected.
- The requirement of financial disclosure includes spousal and minor children interests, broadening the scope of personal impact to include immediate family members of judges and justices.
- The bill influences not only judges currently on the bench but also candidates or new appointees to the federal judiciary.
Reasoning
- The Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act of 2022 primarily impacts federal judges and Supreme Court Justices, which is a relatively small population in terms of total U.S. residents.
- There are approximately 4,500 individuals impacted, including judges, justices, and potentially their immediate families, who may have reporting obligations due to spousal financial interests.
- The budget constraint indicates a moderate investment in regulatory change and oversight, suggesting efforts to enforce transparency and prevent conflict of interest among federal judges without significant financial burden.
- The policy is likely to have minimal direct impact on the general population's wellbeing, as the changes are procedural and ethical rather than having direct socioeconomic effects.
- Given the target population is exclusively within the federal judicial system, public perception of trust in justice and ethics may improve over time, which might indirectly benefit general societal wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Federal Court Judge (Washington D.C.)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will add more administrative work to my role, but I understand the necessity for transparency.
- I support the prohibition on stock ownership as it aligns with preserving judicial integrity.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Federal Appeals Court Judge (New York, NY)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's challenging managing disclosure when my spouse is in finance, but it's doable.
- I'm optimistic this will improve public trust in our work.
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 | 9 | 6 |
Federal District Court Judge (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The impact is minimal for me personally as I don't own stocks.
- I think the policy is crucial for ethical governance.
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 |
Senior Federal Judge (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The prohibitions feel restrictive, but necessary.
- This will benefit our judicial reputation.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Federal Judge Candidate (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will set a good precedent for new judges like me starting a public role.
- I'm hopeful for improved fairness and transparency.
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 | 6 |
Junior Federal Judge (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fully support the transparency this policy encourages.
- It should be a standard for all judiciary members.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Federal Judge (Miami, FL)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency is overdue, but I won't be personally affected.
- It's an important legacy for current and future judges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Federal Judge (Boston, MA)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Switching from stocks to mutual funds was an easy decision for transparency.
- The extra reporting might be cumbersome but necessary.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Federal Judge (Portland, OR)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy solidifies our roles as unbiased adjudicators.
- I'm hopeful the reputation of the judiciary improves as a result.
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 (Denver, CO)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's essential for judges to adapt to these ethical changes to maintain credibility.
- I anticipate this will improve public confidence.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The costs will primarily stem from the monitoring and enforcement of regulations instituted by the bill.
- Initial costs may decrease over time as procedural efficiencies are gained and initial compliance barriers are overcome.
- The judicial system's ethical integrity holds critical value that supersedes direct monetary benefits, contributing indirectly to societal and economic stability.