Justice Elena Kagan told lawmakers Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet resolved how to enforce its code of ethics [1].
The lack of a formal enforcement mechanism leaves the court's ethical standards largely voluntary, raising concerns among lawmakers about accountability and judicial transparency.
Kagan testified before the House and Senate appropriations committees on July 14, 2026 [2]. During the hearing, she addressed the ongoing effort to move beyond a system of self-regulation. "I think we should work hard to try to figure out some enforcement system…" Kagan said [3].
One potential solution discussed by the justice involves the appointment of external overseers. "One idea that has been suggested by some people is to use respected retired judges — that has some pros, some cons…" Kagan said [4]. While she noted that an independent panel could provide necessary accountability, she clarified that the court has not reached a final decision on the matter [5].
The testimony occurred amid a broader discussion of judicial security and funding. The Supreme Court has requested a security budget of $230 million [6]. This request follows a reported 38% rise in threats directed at the justices [7].
Reports on the hearing presented conflicting views regarding the internal unity of the court. Some accounts indicated that Justice Kagan and Justice Amy Coney Barrett disagreed on the necessity of an independent ethics panel [8]. Other reports suggested the justices presented a united front regarding the court's general needs during the proceedings [9].
Kagan did not confirm a specific timeline for the implementation of an enforcement system, only that the court continues to evaluate the options.
“"I think we should work hard to try to figure out some enforcement system…"”
The admission that the Supreme Court lacks a binding enforcement mechanism for its ethics code highlights a significant gap in the U.S. judicial system. By floating the use of retired judges, Justice Kagan is signaling a willingness to consider external oversight to restore public trust, though the reported disagreement between justices suggests that the court remains divided on how much independence such a panel should have.
