Supreme Court implements new rules to help justices spot conflicts of interest

The Supreme Court announced new rules Tuesday designed to help identify all of the parties involved in a case, allowing the justices to figure out if they have conflicts of interest that demand their recusal.

The rules require parties to make sure that some part of a case’s briefing mentions all of the parties involved, and in some cases, their corporate parent firms. The update also requires parties to list the stock ticker symbols of any publicly held companies.

The court said the update will improve the electronic conflict-checking system to spot cases where the justices need to decide whether they can take part.

“Most of the changes are designed to support operation of newly developed software that will assist in identifying potential conflicts for the Justices, and the revisions impose a number of new requirements upon filers to support the software,” a statement from the court said.

The justices regularly recuse themselves when they oversaw a case as a lower court judge or have a stock interest conflict. They have also recused when they know an attorney or party involved in a legal battle. 

Ultimately, it’s up to each justice to decide if they should hear a case. Lower court judges are bound by an ethics code and recusal requirements.

The changes come as the court is under increasing scrutiny over conflicts.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. last month recused himself late in the proceedings from a case involving Chevron’s battle with a Louisiana municipality over coastal erosion. Justice Alito has investments in ConocoPhillips, which had an affiliate that was a party to the case.

Courthouse News Service reported that only two court members, Justice Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., hold individual stocks.

The new rules are updates to a code of ethics the court adopted in 2023.

“The revised rules shall govern all proceedings after their effective date except to the extent that, in the opinion of the court, their application to a pending matter would not be feasible or would work an injustice, in which event the former procedure applies,” read the court’s Tuesday order. 

• Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.