Nearly two years after the justices released their ethics code, there’s much more to do on this front

The new Supreme Court term that starts on Monday will be another blockbuster (they’re all blockbusters when one-third of our constitutional order cedes its power to the other two), as the justices are set to consider issues like voting rights, presidential removal, tariffs and, likely, birthright citizenship.

Even as much of the public’s focus has shifted away from the justices’ (un)ethical practices and institutional stewardship, Fix the Court believes the nine have a responsibility to do better and to show their work. In that vein, we are releasing a list of actions ahead of the start of OT25 that each justice should take, or a question they should answer, to improve the Court’s ethical standing:

Chief Justice Roberts:
Roberts by statute is a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents — a position that in many regards has always been political, yet in 2025 became much more so. At a time when the Trump administration is reimagining American history in ways that advance certain partisan narratives, the Chief Justice should have no part in that project, even tangentially as a board member. In OT25, he should work with Congress — he’s an effective and prolific lobbyist, after all — to change the law.

Justice Thomas:
Thomas’ official portrait is supposed to be revealed “soon” according to the artist, Igor Babailov. Did the Supreme Court Historical Society pay Babailov for the portrait? Did it receive any donations earmarked for it? Or was it funded with private donations? He should let the public know.

Justice Alito:
lito’s most recent periodic transaction report was filed late — i.e., 281 days post-transaction, not up to 45 days as required by law. Under the statute, 5 U.S.C. §13106, this delinquency commands a $200 fine, unless the fine was waived by the Committee on Financial Disclosure. So, did Alito pay up, or was the fine waived, and if it was the latter, where’s the paperwork saying as much?

Justice Sotomayor:
Any time a justice’s name is tied to a major fundraising event with corporate interests, it raises hackles. Sotomayor appears to have little involvement in the Sonia & Celina Sotomayor Judicial Internship Program, and yet, you can’t help but notice that Morrison Foerster ($25,000), Kirkland & Ellis ($10,000), Mayer Brown ($10,000), Paul Hastings ($10,000) and other law firms that practice before the Supreme Court are donating not insignificant funds to the charity. Does the Sotomayor Program add value to the legal profession? Undoubtedly. But with the organization now well-established after 11 years in operation, are overt ties to a justice necessary? No. So why does she remain a nominal part of it?

Justice Kagan:
Kagan said last summer (47:56) that she’d support Chief Justice Roberts creating “some sort of committee of highly respected judges with a great deal of experience and a reputation for fairness” to handle SCOTUS ethics enforcement. This is a great idea. But has Kagan shopped it around the Hill, and if so, why not?

Justice Gorsuch:
It’s often said that the three branches are in conversation with one another, though these days, there’s mostly just shouting from one branch. A more accurate idiom is that the three levels of the federal judiciary are in conversation, and you can see where this is going — recall that Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, called out D. Mass. Judge William Young in August for, in his words (p. 8), “defy[ing]” a SCOTUS decision. Young apologized, so it’d be nice to know if Gorsuch accepted the apology and if he and his colleagues will be clearer in their orders in the future, so a 40-year veteran of the federal bench like Young won’t accidentally misunderstand their emergency docket rulings.

Justice Kavanaugh:
Kavanaugh told an audience in Texas last month, “One of the things that makes a good umpire or referee is consistency. Calling it the same way for both teams. […] Are we doing the same thing for Republicans and Democrats? […] We have to look ourselves in the mirror and make sure over time we’re being consistent in how we apply our principles.” It’s hard to hear that and not think about the parallels between the emergency actions taken (and invalidated) during the Biden administration and those taken by the Trump administration that will be at issue during OT25. So the question is, will the justices this term be consistent in how they apply their principles?

Justice Barrett:
A California middle school student named Sophie interviewed Barrett recently and wrote in an article about the conversation, “Fun fact: the court doesn’t have outside internet access!” It’s unclear if Sophie was getting her wires crossed or was getting a scoop about justices’ and clerks’ restricted Web use. But either way, the missive raises the question: in light of the Dobbs leak and the recent CM/ECF hacks, what’s the state of the Court’s IT security, and is the Court still using non-governmental sources, like the Chertoff Group, to bolster its cyber- and/or physical defenses? Either way, how might a shutdown imperil this work?

Justice Jackson:
Jackson’s year-plus book tour does not appear to be ending any time soon, and during it, she’s had zero conservatives serve as her event moderator or interviewer (Jenna Bush Hager on “TODAY” doesn’t count). At least Gorsuch spoke with The Atlantic’s Becca Rosen, and Barrett had financier David Rubenstein and will have civics educator Sharon McMahon on her calendar, though Barrett’s tour took a right turn of late with an appearance on Fox News, one at FedSoc and two with Hugh Hewitt. So, does Jackson (and Barrett) have any plans to change this?