By Gabe Roth

As we close out 2025, Fix the Court is looking back on several judicial ethics successes we helped bring about this year and reflecting on some shortcomings we’ll be working to fix in the new year. We also include a few ethics stories whose final chapter remains to be told.

Ethics highlight

1. Four justices recuse in case involving their book publisher | Post

Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson disqualified themselves in May due to their agreements with Penguin Random House. FTC had been calling on the justices to do this for years, and it finally happened.

2. State judiciaries’ financial disclosures have improved | Post

According to our July report, improvements (thanks to FTC) occurred in some states (New Jersey, Colorado, Nebraska), with more expected next year (Hawaii, Michigan, Vermont) — and in no states are they getting more opaque or harder to obtain.

3. Questions on workplace conduct are now a part of every judicial nominee’s QFR | Post

With time short during confirmation hearings, questions for the record are a way to raise other important topics, and we’re grateful that Senate Dems worked with us this year to include questions on how nominees would manage their chambers, handle internal complaints and more in their QFRs.

4. We found Justice Sotomayor’s 2024 comments on ethics and term limits | Post

In them, she mentions a missed recusal that FTC identified when it occurred and espoused the benefits of term limits. There are many ways (though often not on the record) throughout the year we know the Court is paying attention to our work, but finding this audio in August was especially gratifying.

5. House Approps report includes language telling the judiciary to do more on workplace conduct | Post

That includes implementing the recommendations of multiple reports on harassment and updating the Committee with information about how judiciary staff can avail itself of Title VII-like rights (they can’t, but that’s the point). Similar language has been included in years past, but it’s not a given — and, frankly, it wouldn’t have happened this year without FTC.

6. Some judge-adjuncts are, in fact, recusing in cases involving the parent universities | Post

Though most are not, we found that some are, quite possibly because we’ve been beating this drum, and what’s more, the worst offender among the 24 judge-adjuncts we identified in our “Conflict U.” report started issuing orders after our report came out asking parties whether he should recuse on account of his adjunct position.

7. The American Bar Association’s House of Delegates passes a resolution calling for enforceable ethics at the Supreme Court | Post

I made a presentation on this very topic to the NYC Bar last year, which was the entity that submitted the resolution adopted by the ABA in February.

8. We chronicled the justices’ 263 events, appearances and interviews this year | Post

This was a record number, at least since we took over for SCOTUSMap in 2020. Every few months, we went back over the list to inquire about audio or video, which is sometimes recorded but not made public for a while, and added links when available. We’ll be doing this again in 2026.

9. A dozen judicial reform bills were introduced in Congress | Link

I don’t expect any to become law, but there’s value in ensuring that lawmakers are keeping the pressure on the courts, are considering what’s possible and are ready when the moment’s right — all of which is helped along by our work.

Ethics lowlights

1. The Judicial Conference drops the Justice Thomas referral on disclosure omissions | Post

Thomas violated the law by omitting information on his disclosure. There are consequences for said violations, namely a Judicial Conference referral to the Justice Department that can result in fines and other penalties, and the Conference’s decision to drop the issue was an abdication of its critical (and statutory) oversight role.

2. Investigation finds too many instances of harassment in the lower courts | Post

In March, NPR reported that they had heard stories about sexual harassment, bullying or other hostile treatment by two dozen judges — several appointed by Republicans and several appointed by Democrats (only four were referenced directly due to confidentiality/retaliation concerns) — with many of these judges still serving on the bench. It was quite the wakeup call…that Congress and the AO have yet to hear.

3. The SCOTUS ethics code remains in stasis | Post

Despite the encouraging commentary to the code, which states that other “best practices” might be implemented, and despite a handful of recusal and travel decisions that imply the justices may be taking ethics more seriously, we haven’t seen anything in writing that’s improved what was underwhelmingly put on paper two years ago. And we’re still awaiting answers from the Court about Justice Sotomayor’s 2024 Spain trip, which doesn’t appear on her disclosure but should; Justice Jackson’s appearance on Broadway, which counts as a gift; and Justice Alito’s recent PTR, which was filed six months past the deadline.

4. The justices’ book tours are more partisan than they should be | Post

What do Hugh Hewitt, Bari Weiss, Valerie Jarrett and Afua Hirsch have in common? If you’ve heard of them, you know which political team they play for, and each interviewed a predictable justice on their book tour this year. For the justices, though, it’s all gravy: their collective book revenue in 2025 topped $10 million, and by this time next year, it’ll be $12-$14 million.

5. Justice Gorsuch admonishes a lower court judge for purportedly not following SCOTUS’s orders | Post

This was unbecoming of a justice, and though the lower court judge apologized for potentially misinterpreting a SCOTUS order, the fact remains that it’s on the justices to do a better job explaining themselves.

6. Justice Barrett doubles down on not explaining her recusals | Post

At this point, we’re not asking for a list of your best friends (though could probably come up with one); we’re just asking you to point to a line in §455 or the SCOTUS ethics code that informs your recusal decision. In response to a question about recusals at a September event, Barrett demurred. And Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts are also still not explaining their recusals.

7. Conflict U., i.e., if you teach at OSU Law, you should recuse from OSU cases | Post

As mentioned above, we’re pleased that some judge-adjuncts are recusing in cases featuring parent universities (recall that Justices Gorsuch and Barrett saw this as a conflict), but the fact remains that most are not, and despite our urging, the Judicial Conference’s Codes Committee has refused to get involved to more clarity on the issue.

8. Lower court judges are accepting too many lavish gifts | Post

That includes cash, jewelry, vacations and custom skis, so it’s not just a few SCOTUS judges who appear to be taking advantage of their positions. We’ll have a more comprehensive report on this in the new year but our tally from January offers a good overview.

Ethics TBDs / mixed results

1. The status of judicial security | Post

In February, I wrote an op-ed for Bloomberg asking whether the administration would take rising threats against judges seriously. With a significant number of the threats today coming from inside the government, the answer is obviously no. It’s not just unethical to threaten a judge for doing his or her job, it’s unconscionable. This goes in the “mixed” category because groups like the Article III Coalition, Society for the Rule of Law and Bolch Judicial Institute (and us) have risen up to defend judges admirably.

2. Judge Bove’s attendance at a Trump rally | Post

Though it was obviously an ethics violation for him to attend the Dec. 9 event in Pennsylvania, we’re putting this as a TBD since it’s possible there’s a positive resolution to the issue that comes as a result of our complaint. Not likely, but not impossible.

3. Questions about CM/ECF and PACER hack remain | Post

Instead of holding a hearing next month on “rogue judges,” the Senate Judiciary Committee should instead be looking for answers as to why the courts records system keeps getting breached. On the bright side, we’ll very likely have a free PACER bill in 2026, and should that pass, many of these problems will be fixed.

4. The Judge Newman complaint remains in limbo | Post

We’ll learn soon whether Newman’s request for an en banc hearing before the D.C. Circuit in her suit against Chief Judge Moore is granted, but in the meantime, and with every other serious or semi-serious complaint against a circuit judge being sent to a different circuit, we’re working to make sure that transfers are statutorily required. More on that in 2026.

5. We sued the State Department for withholding documents related to the justices’ international travel | Post

When the justices travel abroad, they sometimes do so with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. We asked for documents related to that travel, didn’t get any and sued in March. State is slated to produce the first set of documents to us this coming March.

6. The Michigan Supreme Court hears testimony from me on proposed changes to disclosure requirements | Post

I testified in March in favor of the Court’s proposal, which would add several categories to the disclosures, including spousal employer, passive income, stock and bond holdings, debts and real estate holdings. There has yet to be a resolution on this, but we expect one next year.