Appears to be one of the few post-Code ethics improvements; unclear if adoption is Court-wide

Documents Fix the Court received this week via an open records request to UVA appear to indicate a rare post-Code of Conduct policy change at the Supreme Court — one that articulates the ethics requirements for the justices’ speaking engagements.

The documents (blank version here), titled “Speaking Engagement / Appearance Form” and “Event Detail Form,” were filled out by UVA staff ahead of Chief Justice Roberts’ April appearance to receive the Jefferson Foundation Medal. Per the first form, an event the Chief Justice is considering attending may not be “a ‘fundraising event’ under the definition in the Code of Conduct […]”; it may not be “sponsored by or associated with a party or a campaign for political office”; and the event organizer may not “currently [be] a party to a case pending at the Supreme Court and does not have a financial interest in the outcome of either a case that is currently pending at the Supreme Court or a case that is likely to come before the Supreme Court in the near future.”

The second form asks for basic details, such as the proposed date, time and topic, and — importantly — confirms that guests will be subject to a security check and that a point of contact for security has been established.

Prior to the SCOTUS form’s creation, details about the ethics requirements for justices’ appearances were typically communicated in a more piecemeal way; for example, the justices’ staffs or the public information office would email event hosts sentences like, “The Justice may not be associated with fundraising” (p. 6 of emails from FOIA about a 2017 Justice Kagan event at the University of Wisconsin), or, “Please note the image or likeness of Justice Alito may not be used in association with fundraising or in a manner that might suggest endorsement…” (p. 3 of emails from FOIA about a 2017 Justice Alito event at the University of South Carolina). In both cases, dozens of pages of additional correspondence followed.

“By describing his ethical responsibilities for reimbursed events in black and white, the Chief Justice is taking a step forward, however small, in improving the Court’s ethical stewardship,” FTC’s Gabe Roth said. “But it’s a shame this is only surfacing thanks to an open records request and not as part of, say, a periodic update the Court posts on its website. After all the ethics challenges the Court has faced over the last few years, it shouldn’t be shy about its improvements, even when they’re modest.”

These forms are more detailed than the one hosts of lower court judges’ privately funded seminars must fill out (see description). FTC does not have a copy of them, but the reports they generate, bereft of detail, are posted online. In contrast, the pre-event forms prospective hosts of members of Congress must fill out are full of useful information from an oversight perspective (see pp. 2-5).

No forms like this have emerged from any prior FTC public records requests. That, and the nod to the Code at the top, implies they’re new, though on Wednesday a Supreme Court spokesperson declined to discuss their provenance or the extent of their use on the record.

Also on Wednesday, Justice Jackson’s May interview on Michelle Obama’s “IMO” podcast aired, with Jackson mentioning her ethics responsibilities vis-a-vis events (1:00:39): “There are employees […] in the legal office of the court and the public information office of the court, who are assisting us [on ethics]. When I get invitations to do things, I always have them screened by the legal office, the public information office, just to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts, that this is not a fundraiser.” No forms were discussed, however.

Ethics-related policy changes post-Nov. 2023 have been few and far between: four justices recused in a petition involving their book publisher in 2025 (they didn’t use to); the Court in February acknowledged that all justices are using conflict-check software; and in March it started requiring litigants, where applicable, to include their stock ticker symbols in filings.

(The two justices who explain their recusals started doing so earlier in 2023, and it’s difficult to attribute any late-arriving or unexpected recusals — e.g., Gorsuch in Seven County, Barrett in Drummond and Alito in Plaquemines — to the Code’s existence.)

FTC received these documents as part of a months-long open-records-based project seeking to better understand the justices’ travels and perks. Two dozen requests have been submitted, with documents arriving every week. This builds on our open records work from 2019-20, and a full report is expected in early fall.

Update on State Department FOIA lawsuit:
Elsewhere, according to documents FTC received last week (batch four) via a FOIA lawsuit against the State Department, it appears (p. 23) that in 2018 Justice Breyer took two private plane flights — one from Dublin to London on Oct. 16; the other from London to Milan on Oct. 18 — courtesy of the Pritzker Organization and didn’t report either on his financial disclosure report (see p. 3, item no. 10, where “Italy” should have at least been mentioned).

In addition to requesting a disclosure amendment, assuming the flights flew, we now question Breyer’s decision to list his Pritzker-sponsored trips each year as reimbursements rather than gifts, since his participation with the organization, principally as a Pritzker Prize juror, was not an extension of his official duties or in the service of civic education, making them more like a gift.

We have asked the Court for comment but to date have just received an acknowledgement of receipt.