Editorial: One standard for all jurists

Saturday, Sept. 23, 2006 | 7:38 a.m.

A panel of judges led by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts deserves credit for drafting new rules that should make the federal judiciary more transparent and its jurists more accountable. But the Supreme Court itself is exempt from the new rules. It shouldn't be.

Watchdog groups and members of Congress have long complained that some federal judges have skated through conflicts of interest. They suggest that judges should more carefully monitor their personal financial stakes in cases. And there has been concern about judges who jet-set to "junket" events paid for by groups or corporations that have cases pending in federal court. Some members of Congress believe that federal judges should be barred from attending private seminars hosted by interest groups that pay for the judges' travel, accommodations and meals.

To that end, and to head off potential intervention by Congress, the 27-member Judicial Conference of the United States, meeting at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, announced several new policies. Among them: The nation's 2,200 federal judges (minus the Supreme Court's nine) now are required to use computer software that alerts them to cases that may pose a financial conflict of interest. Some judges have used similar programs with spotty results. A new user-friendly version is available now, Chief Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., told reporters.

The panel also crafted a policy governing expenses-paid trips, often for judges to attend private conferences and seminars. New rules dictate that event sponsors must reveal who is paying for the judges' travel - before the trip is made. That information, along with reports submitted by judges themselves, is to be available on court Web sites.

The new rules may help erase even the appearance of impropriety, and that would be an important step in the right direction.

But a loophole remains. The Judicial Conference's jurisdiction does not extend to the Supreme Court, so the new rules do not apply to its justices. These nine jurists, despite their lofty positions, are not above reproach. Red flags have been raised from time to time.

The travel habits of justices came under renewed scrutiny when Justice Antonin Scalia traveled with Vice President Dick Cheney on a friendly duck hunting trip in 2004, when the court was mulling a Cheney appeal in a case over whether records from a White House energy task force that Cheney headed should be made public. Scalia did not recuse himself from the case as, we believe, he should have done.

Justice Samuel Alito himself faced pointed questioning during a confirmation hearing about his failure to remove himself from a case involving Vanguard, despite his investments in Vanguard mutual funds. Federal laws require even Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from cases in which they have a financial stake - but the justices decide for themselves when to stay out of a case.

Perhaps because the justices believe they enjoy such reverence, the Supreme Court has no written ethics rules. But the high court's lofty reputation as the nation's final, most impartial arbiter would only be burnished - not tarnished - if it were to adopt rules similar to those that now apply to lower courts.