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: Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who rely on and are subject to decisions made by the US federal courts
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The entire US judicial system is built on decisions made by these courts, which affect the legislative and executive branches indirectly.
- A small number of judges (9 Supreme Court Justices, the 179 Court of Appeals judges, 673 District Court judges, and several for the Court of International Trade) will be directly affected.
- The decisions of these judges have broad and far-reaching impacts nationwide, potentially affecting millions of individuals who rely on the judicial system for justice.
- Confidence in the judicial system affects how rules and laws are implemented and followed by citizens.
Reasoning
- Under a budget of $25 million in the first year, the policy primarily targets enhancing ethical standards and transparency among a specific and small audience – federal judges.
- Given that there are around 900 federal judges directly affected, the policy cost per judge might exceed $10,000 in the first year when compliance measures, training, and oversight are considered.
- Despite directly affecting a small group, the ripple effects on public trust and systemic ethics could indirectly impact an estimated 332 million individuals in the US, as everyone relies on judicial decisions.
- The policy is likely to have negligible direct impact on the wellbeing scores of most citizens, but significant indirect effects through enhanced court trust and decision-making clarity.
Simulated Interviews
Public Defender (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a much-needed step towards accountability in the judiciary.
- Not directly affecting my daily tasks, but likely to improve fairness in my clients' cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it's important, I don't see immediate changes this could bring to my business environment.
- I support any efforts to increase transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Justice should always be ethical, but I doubt this will visibly change much for ordinary people like me.
- Feels like a distant policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Federal Judge (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This increases our accountability and could restore trust in our roles.
- Some resistance among colleagues, but ultimately beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Law Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone entering this field, a code of conduct is a significant progression towards fairness.
- It makes the system more appealing as a career choice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
High School Teacher (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Justices ought to be held to ethical standards, glad to see initiative.
- Students will benefit from learning about a transparent judiciary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Corporate Lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might reduce instances of bias, helping us argue cases more confidently.
- However, the impact will not be immediate.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Civil Rights Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Essential for preserving judicial integrity and public trust.
- Hopeful for long-term systemic change, though short-term effects might be limited.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This strengthens the foundation of accurate and transparent legal reporting.
- Could inspire more interest and respect for the law in the public domain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Factory Worker (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not sure how this affects me on the ground, but more ethics is always better.
- Hope it means fewer biased decisions across all levels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $26000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $36000000)
Year 3: $27000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $37000000)
Year 5: $29000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $39000000)
Year 10: $32000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $42000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The upfront costs of establishing the system should eventually lead to improved judicial efficiency and public confidence.
- Long-term impacts on legal processes, appeals, and public trust in the judiciary are crucial but difficult to monetize.
- The direct financial benefits are modest compared to the potential societal benefits in promoting ethical conduct and transparency.