New Software for SCOTUS to Detect Financial Conflicts for Justices - FindLaw

Beginning in March, the Supreme Court will use a new software developed by the Court’s Office of Information Technology to help determine whether the justices have any potential conflicts of interest with the parties or attorneys in each case. Changes to the Rules of the Court will require litigants to further highlight corporate ownership directly in their filings by adding stock ticker symbols to aid in detection.

The move is meant to assist Supreme Court justices and litigants in detecting possible grounds for recusal, particularly financial conflicts. The high court has been under scrutiny for the last several years regarding potential conflicts of interest. It will still be up to the justices themselves whether they recuse.

Disclosures, Recusals, and Federal Law

Until 2023, when the justices agreed to the Supreme Court’s first Code of Conduct, there was no formal ethics code for Supreme Court justices, aside from guidance from the federal judiciary at large. The Supreme Court’s Code states that a justice “should disqualify himself or herself” for a number of reasons, including when they or their close family members have a “financial interest” in a case.

The Code of Conduct’s requirement echoes statutory requirements for the federal judiciary in general. Federal judges and Supreme Court justices alike are required by law to recuse themselves from “any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” which includes cases where:

• They have “personal bias or prejudice” or personal knowledge of the matter
• They previously worked on the matter as an attorney or as government counsel
• The judge or their spouse or children have a “financial interest” in the matter or outcome
• The judge or their spouse has certain close relatives involved in the case

The Judicial Conference of the United States requires lower courts to conduct mandatory conflict screening using automated recusal-check software. Federal judges themselves have the ultimate responsibility to review their own financial dealings, as well as those of their relatives, and provide the information needed.

A litigant may move for a judge’s recusal, or even for a justice’s recusal. In practice, however, these motions rarely succeed, and even filing them is a risk for the litigant’s case. Writer and litigation attorney Ken White calls them “hopeless.” And, of course, there can be no further challenge when a Supreme Court justice does not recuse themselves.

Related Resources

SCOTUS Applies Major Questions Doctrine to Strike Down Trump’s Emergency Tariffs(FindLaw's Federal Courts)New Ethics Guidance on When Judges Can (and Can’t) Publicly Defend the Rule of Law(FindLaw's Practice of Law)University of Arkansas Withdraws Incoming Law Dean’s Offer Over Her Transgender Stance(FindLaw's Practice of Law)