The Supreme Court announced in November that for the first time it would impose a code of ethics on itself.

Senior Sanika Saraf, co-president of Mock Trial, said she did not know the Supreme Court didn’t already have a code of ethics 

“I knew that the rules on the Supreme Court and our judicial system are very vague, especially in our Constitution, and even in our state,” Saraf said. “I wasn’t aware that there wasn’t a code of ethics, but I know the regulations on the Supreme Court are kind of iffy.”

Saraf said a code of ethics is necessary for the Supreme Court to have.

“Certain Supreme Court justices had personal relationships to certain cases and they still had a judgment in the case, which I think is totally unfair,” Saraf said. “That means their ruling was biased, and I think having a code of ethics would help combat those biases.”

Senior Nour Elbeshbeshy, co-president of Mock Trial, said a code of ethics for the Supreme Court is also a good idea because of the way justices gain power.

“The justices, the way they get put in power is very dependent on the political climate of the time, like the leanings of the president, the leanings of Congress,” Elbeshbeshy said.

John Richardson, partner at Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP, said the stated purpose of the code is to dispel the misunderstanding that the justices think of themselves as being unrestricted by ethics.

Richardson said several events could have led to this decision such as the instance with Justice Clarence Thomas, who was exposed by news outlets for having business transactions with a conservative donor. Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito received vacations from donors with business before the court. Additionally, Justice Sonia Sotomayor used speaking engagements at universities to advance book sales, and some reporting suggested that her staff may have pressured institutions to purchase her books.

“They are taking steps to, in some way, try to restore this confidence, or trust, in the court itself,” Richardson said.

Richardson said there has been a lot of criticism about the court’s action to create a code of ethics.

“A lot of folks think that this is really just lip service,” Richardson said. “Most of the writing in this code of conduct is framed passively in other words, what the justices should do or what they may do versus what they shall do.”

Richardson said these are fair criticisms as there is no way to hold the justices accountable if they are found to be in violation of the code of ethics they made.

Scott Szevery, social studies teacher, said the code of ethics is enforced by the court itself.

“In that sense, it doesn’t really work as a part of checks and balances because the whole nature of checks and balances is somebody else keeps you in line with whatever policy is made in government,” Szevery said.

Szevery said he is skeptical the code of ethics will have much of an impact unless justices feel pressured to uphold their reputations.

In the past, Szevery said, the court’s independence has been thought to be positive, and the justices have been held in check by the ability of Congress to impeach and remove them.

“The court in it’s history has managed to avoid controversy, by, to a certain extent, staying out of the culture wars, these battles over issues like abortion and gun rights,” Szevery said. “But, what we have seen in the last several decades is the court starting to weigh in on a lot of these issues that tend to polarize the American public.”

The court has therefore fallen under more scrutiny with people more politically invested in their decisions, Szevery said.

“As a result, there are a lot more people looking for reasons why the court is illegitimate, or broken in some way,” Szevery said.

This has in part happened due to polarization and inability to make decisions in Congress, and since Congress can’t decide on issues, the court feels pressure to make decisions, Szevery said.

“We have forgotten that this country was founded on constitutional compromises and that this country was at its best, in my opinion, when we found the middle ground,” Szevery said. “That is how democracy is designed to work.”