SerpApi.Org
Supreme Court justices, other federal judges, their spouses and some of their children will have to place certain financial assets into qualified blind trusts, according to a newly introduced congressional bill. The proposal, called the Justice Is BLIND Act, is intended to strengthen judicial ethics rules by limiting direct control over investments that could create potential conflicts of interest. Introduced by Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, the legislation faces an uphill battle in Congress despite growing calls for tougher financial oversight of the judiciary.
Proposal aims to strengthen judicial ethics rules
Rep. Johnson announced the legislation on July 20, arguing it would reduce conflicts of interest by requiring covered financial assets, including securities, commodities, futures and derivative-based investments, to be placed in qualified blind trusts. Diversified mutual funds and U.S. Treasury securities would generally be exempt. “Americans deserve to know that officials in every branch of government — including the judiciary — are acting honorably and in the interest of the people, not their bank accounts,” Johnson said in a statement.
The legislation would apply broadly across the federal judiciary, covering Supreme Court justices, appellate and district court judges, magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges. It would also extend to spouses and dependent children. Under the proposal, dependent children include unmarried children under 21 living in a judge’s household, as well as students under 24 by the end of the calendar year.
Details of the Justice Is BLIND Act
If enacted, judges already serving would have 90 days to transfer covered financial interests into qualified blind trusts, while newly appointed judges would receive 90 days from the date they are sworn in. Judges would also have to certify compliance, with those certifications published in a searchable database maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
The legislation specifies that spouses and dependent children could use either their own qualified blind trust or one established by the judge. Once assets are transferred, family members would generally lose the ability to direct investment decisions or receive detailed information about their holdings. The trusts could not be dissolved until at least 180 days after a judge leaves office.
Barrett and Kavanaugh families could be affected
The proposal could affect the families of several sitting justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the Supreme Court in 2020, has seven children. Based on publicly available information, four of them are likely to qualify as dependent children because they are under 18, while two others could qualify if they are students, as they are both over 21 years old. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appointed in 2018, and his wife, Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, have two daughters, ages 21 and 18, who would also likely fall within the bill’s definition of dependent children. If any of the children owned covered financial assets, like individual stocks or similar investments, those investments would have to be transferred into qualified blind trusts.
Proposed bill faces significant political hurdles
Supporters have argued that the proposal would bring the judiciary closer to conflict-of-interest standards already imposed on other federal officials. “The federal judicial system is desperately in need of reform to prevent further ethical lapses. The Supreme Court, and our federal judiciary at large, must be held to the highest standards, but time after time, judges have engaged in troubling acts, putting personal interests above the law and Constitution,” Sen. Adam Schiff, who is sponsoring companion legislation in the Senate, said in a statement.
However, the bill faces significant hurdles, as no Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors in either chamber, meaning Democrats would need House Speaker Mike Johnson to allow a vote and then persuade at least six Republicans to support the legislation.
Johnson’s spokesperson Andy Phelan nevertheless expressed optimism, telling Newsweek in a statement, “I think there’s always hope that colleagues across the aisle will embrace this commonsense legislation. I think there is a growing appetite to ban stock trading by public officials, including the judiciary.”
