SerpApi.Org
A new bill introduced in Congress on Monday would not only impose restrictions on how Supreme Court justices and their spouses can manage their finances, but also on their children, potentially until they reach age 24.
The proposal, known as the Justice Is BLIND Act, was introduced by Representative Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, and would require federal judges and Supreme Court justices to place certain financial assets into qualified blind trusts. The legislation is aimed at reducing potential conflicts of interest and increasing public confidence in the courts following years of scrutiny over judicial ethics and financial disclosures. The measure faces an uphill battle in Congress, though, with no Republicans signing on to either the Senate or the House bill as cosponsors.
“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.
“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,” Andy Phelan, a spokesperson for Johnson, told Newsweek when asked about the chances of the bill passing.
Newsweek also reached out to the public information officer for the Supreme Court but did not receive a response in time for publication.
What Justice Is Blind Act Would Mean for Supreme Court Justices
Johnson announced the legislation on July 20, saying it would help prevent judicial conflicts of interest by requiring federal judges and Supreme Court justices to place financial assets into qualified blind trusts. According to the bill, covered financial interests include securities, commodities, futures and similar investments acquired through derivatives. Diversified mutual funds and U.S. Treasury securities would generally be exempt.
The legislation would apply not only to Supreme Court justices but also to federal district judges, appellate judges, magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges. Their spouses and dependent children would be subject to the same requirements. Under the bill’s definition, a dependent child would qualify if they are:
- Unmarried, under age 21 and living in the household of such reporting individual
- A student under the age of 24 as of the close of such calendar year
The bill requires spouses and dependent children to place their assets into either their own blind trust or one established by the judge. Once assets are placed into such a trust, the judge and family members would generally be unable to exercise direct control over them. Even after a judge leaves office, the trust could not be dissolved for 180 days.
Judges already serving when the law takes effect would have 90 days to move covered financial interests into a qualified blind trust. Newly appointed judges would have 90 days from the date they are sworn into office. The bill would also require judges to submit written certifications showing compliance, which would be published in a searchable public database maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Supporters argue the measure would bring the judiciary in line with conflict-of-interest safeguards 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,” Senator Adam Schiff, who is co-sponsoring partner legislation in the Senate, said in a statement.
Amy Coney Barrett’s Children
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the Supreme Court in 2020, has seven children with her husband Jesse Barrett. Several of Barrett’s children remain under the age threshold that could make them dependent children under federal ethics rules. Little has been made public about Barrett’s children, but four are likely to qualify as dependents since they’re under the age of 18, and two may qualify if they’re students, since they’re over the age of 21.
As a result, if any of those children own covered financial interests such as individual stocks or similar investments, those holdings could be required to be placed into a qualified blind trust under the Justice Is BLIND Act.
Brett Kavanaugh’s Children
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the Supreme Court in 2018, also has children who would likely fall within the category of dependent children covered by the legislation.
Kavanaugh and his wife, Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, have two daughters. Because Kavanaugh’s daughters are 21 and 18, they would likely meet the federal ethics-law definition of dependent children referenced in the Justice Is BLIND Act.
That means any covered financial interests owned by them could potentially be required to be transferred into qualified blind trusts if the bill became law. As with Barrett’s children, the proposal would not seize or eliminate those assets. Rather, it would require that they be managed through a structure designed to prevent the judge, spouse or dependent child from directing day-to-day investment decisions or receiving detailed information about holdings.
What Restrictions Are There on Supreme Court Justices’ Finances Already
Supreme Court justices are already subject to a number of financial disclosure requirements. They must file annual reports detailing assets, income, gifts, reimbursements and certain transactions. Those disclosures are intended to provide transparency and allow the public to identify potential conflicts of interest.
Congress tightened those requirements in 2022 when then-President Joe Biden signed legislation accelerating disclosure deadlines for stock trades by federal judges and requiring the judiciary to create a searchable database of financial reports. The law was designed to increase transparency following reports that some judges had participated in cases involving companies in which they or their families owned stock.
Justices are also subject to federal recusal statutes requiring them to step aside from cases in which they have a financial interest or other disqualifying conflict. However, it’s up to the justices to make the decision whether they want to recuse themselves.
The new proposal represents a significantly more aggressive approach. Rather than relying on justices to disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when necessary, it would seek to prevent potential conflicts from arising in the first place by limiting direct control over investments held by judges, spouses and dependent children.
What’s Next?
Democrats in the House would first need to convince House Speaker Mike Johnson to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, and then convince at least six Republicans to vote with them to pass the measure.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gray R. Thomas
Related Articles
