Fixing the Supreme Court

For decades, the Supreme Court has been treated as if it were a sacred temple hovering above politics.

Yet behind that façade, trust in the institution has plummeted. Revelations about undisclosed gifts, lavish travel, and entanglements with political interests have fueled calls for reform. Representative Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor turned legislator, has emerged as one of the clearest voices outlining what America can actually do to fix the Court. His argument is simple: the justices cannot continue to police themselves. And I couldn’t agree more. Not sure why the founders did not foresee this danger of an unjust court seeding power to an authoritarian.

In a recent interview, Raskin cut to the heart of the issue: “No institution in a democracy can be allowed to operate without accountability, and that includes the Supreme Court”. That statement reframes the Court not as an untouchable shrine but as one branch of government that, like the others, requires oversight and transparency.

The Toothless Code of Conduct

In November 2023, the Court released its first-ever Code of Conduct for justices. At first glance, this seemed like progress: a long-overdue admission that ethical standards matter at the highest court in the land. But critics, including Raskin, were quick to note the obvious problem: the justices themselves remain both the referees and the players. No external body enforces the code. If a justice ignores it, nothing happens.

Contrast this with Congress, where members face binding rules on gifts, financial disclosures, and outside income. Executive branch officials are subject to similar restrictions, backed by independent oversight. Only the Supreme Court enjoys the luxury of self-regulation. Raskin argues this imbalance is corrosive, creating “a double standard where the most powerful judges in the country are the least accountable to the public”.

Legislative Paths to Reform

Raskin is not content to simply criticize. Alongside colleagues such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, he has introduced legislation that would impose real consequences.

• The High Court Gift Ban Act: This bill would cap gifts to justices at $50 per instance or $100 annually, bringing them in line with restrictions already applied to members of Congress and federal employees. The legislation also sets a ceiling for hospitality benefits at around $18,000 a year. For a justice who now enjoys free luxury travel on private jets or mega-yachts, the difference would be stark.
  
• The Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024: This proposal would establish an independent Office of the Inspector General for the judiciary, empowered to investigate misconduct. Instead of asking justices to investigate themselves, Congress would ensure impartial scrutiny, much as it does in the executive branch.
  

Together, these reforms would close loopholes that currently allow undisclosed influence to shape the Court’s composition and rulings.

Structural Changes Beyond Ethics

Ethics reform is only the first step. Groups like Fix the Court have been pushing for bigger, structural changes for a while. Raskin’s on board with some of those ideas, especially term limits for justices, which I totally agree with. Lifetime appointments made sense when people lived to about 60, but now they can last 40 or 50 years, giving one president’s picks a huge amount of influence. And let’s be real… it’s pretty likely they’ll get out of touch with today’s world compared to 50-60 years ago. That can really hold us back, especially on social issues. 

Term limits, coupled with staggered appointments, would reduce the stakes of each confirmation battle. They would also diminish the temptation for justices to cling to power for strategic reasons. Raskin has also supported greater transparency, including live-streaming oral arguments and strengthening disclosure requirements. “Sunlight is still the best disinfectant,” he insists, reminding the public that judicial legitimacy depends on openness, not mystique (Raskin, 2024).

The Role of Citizens

One of Raskin’s most important points is that reform cannot come from lawmakers alone. “Democracy is not a spectator sport,” he often says, and this applies to the judiciary as much as to elections. Citizens can pressure their representatives to support these bills. They can amplify campaigns by organizations working on judicial reform. And they can insist that the courts, like all other institutions, remain accountable to the people they serve.

This is not about partisan advantage, though some will see it that way. Ethical standards and independent oversight should appeal across ideological lines. The same rules that would limit one justice’s ability to cozy up to wealthy donors would also restrain another justice decades from now, no matter who appointed them.

Why Reform Matters

The Supreme Court is powerful not because it commands armies or controls budgets but because its decisions are treated as final. Although, I do believe recent developments lead me to believe the US Marshalls should report directly to the Supreme Court. That power rests on legitimacy, and legitimacy rests on trust. If Americans believe the Court is compromised, whether by money, ideology, or secrecy, the foundation begins to crack.

Raskin’s blueprint is pragmatic. It does not call for abolishing the Court or rewriting the Constitution. Instead, it asks the justices to live by the same rules that apply to every other public servant. Enforceable codes of conduct, gift restrictions, term limits, and independent oversight are not radical ideas. They are the bare minimum for institutions that wield enormous influence over everyday life.

As Raskin puts it, “The people should never have to wonder whose interests their judges are serving. Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done” (Raskin, 2024).