Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, has reintroduced a trio of bills aimed at conflicts of interest and public-records access in the federal judiciary. The measures are part of a broader push to increase transparency in the federal courts and add to an active debate over strengthening ethics rules for judges and Supreme Court justices.
Two of the bills would address situations in which Supreme Court justices or lower-court judges have a financial interest in litigation before them. They would expand conflict-of-interest rules that apply to the executive branch to the judiciary and require justices and judges to place certain financial assets in a blind trust. The proposals face slim odds of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Ethics debate reaches Congress
Lawmakers questioned Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett about the high court’s ethics code during the justices’ appearances before House and Senate spending committee panels on July 14. The renewed legislative activity comes as questions about judicial transparency and financial conflicts remain part of the public debate over the federal courts.
The Supreme Court has scheduled 25 cases for oral argument during the 2026-27 term as of July 22, 2026. That is fewer than the 31 cases scheduled at the same point last year and the 27 scheduled in 2024, but more than the 21 cases scheduled at the corresponding point in the term before that.
The court’s first summer order list, released Monday, included an announcement that the justices will hear argument in Jouppi v. Alaska. The case concerns an Alaskan bush pilot’s challenge to the forfeiture of his $95,000 airplane over a six-pack of beer. The second summer order list is scheduled for release on Aug. 17.
Other legal developments discussed alongside the ethics proposals include a 50 percent tariff on a wide range of Canadian goods under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a forthcoming en banc review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit of the federal ban on firearm possession by a person previously convicted of a felony, and renewed discussion of possible 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices followed by senior status.