We are just about a month away from the beginning of the October 2024 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the high court should always command immense respect, its public approval is at or near historic lows, according to a Pew report earlier this month.
Nearly a year ago, the Supreme Court imposed upon itself a set of ethics rules that I charitably called unenforceable, after a series of controversial revelations surrounding undisclosed financial and political conflicts of interest. This was before the clock hit 2024 and things got markedly worse.
What the Supreme Court justices and we as the public need to realize is that, by the time the court’s October 2024 term begins, we may find ourselves at a tipping point that permanently destroys public confidence in our judicial system and deeply affects our democracy.
As the election approaches, one party is nearly certain to turn to the nation’s courts and file multiple challenges to the results if it loses. And although some of these challenges will be suspect, some may have enough grounding in or around the law to make it up the ladder all the way to the Supreme Court.
The court’s job here is not only to be the ultimate arbiter of election law, but also to issue rulings that the public will view as just, fair and valid. I believe this will be too much of a reach for this current incarnation of the Supreme Court.
As someone who works in the media and messaging space, I deeply understand the importance of having one’s message meet the moment. The Supreme Court hasn’t met the moment in years. That same Pew report shows that five years ago, favorable public opinion about the Supreme Court was a whopping 20 percent higher than it is today. That is a massive gap.
To fix this problem, we need a thorough, functional and enforceable code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.
I know I’m dreaming when I say that I hope the court tackles this itself rather than have some solution imposed on it, which would be a very bad look. Whether Congress imposes external rules governing court discipline, or whether it and the president agree to other reforms, these ideas won’t do much to change how we see the court.
What will actually work is for the justices to stop doing shady things. Along with that, the court needs to codify and enact a set of disciplinary rules in which the public can have confidence. These don’t need to be draconian rules, they just need to have a basic set of functional teeth that can bite when a justice crosses the line.
None of this is optional anymore. The Supreme Court needs to clarify ethical standards, ensuring transparency, enhancing accountability and maintaining judicial independence. Our democracy depends on it, as does the nation’s entire judicial structure.
In practical terms, if our public confidence in the Supreme Court continues to fall, it will affect how we see all of our courts. After all, how can we believe that, for instance, the circuit courts of appeal are straight shooters, if we feel that the ultimate decision at the nation’s highest court is already predetermined?
Aron Solomon is the chief strategy officer for Amplify. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania.
