The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will use specialized software to help justices pinpoint potential conflicts of interest to modernize its opaque ethics protocols.
The automated system, developed internally by the court’s Office of Information Technology, is designed to flag cases where a justice’s financial holdings or personal ties might necessitate a recusal.
The announcement marks a significant technological shift for a bench that has long policed its own ethics with minimal outside transparency. Under the new system, automated checks will cross-reference the names of parties and attorneys in a case against lists of entities provided by each justice’s chambers.
To facilitate this digital matching process, the court is updating its filing rules. Effective March 16, lawyers will be required to provide stock ticker symbols for all companies involved in their cases, giving the software a precise data point to compare against the justices’ investment portfolios.
The software pivot comes after several years of intense scrutiny regarding the court’s ethical standards, especially around Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. Recent investigations into unreported luxury travel, high-profile book deals, and relationships with wealthy donors have fueled a public and political outcry for reform. While lower federal judges have used similar conflict-check software since 2007, the Supreme Court has historically remained an outlier.
The justices first signaled an interest in such a tool in late 2023 when they released their first formal Code of Conduct. That document was a response to “mounting ethics pressure,” though critics—including court reform advocacy groups—pointed out that the code lacks a binding enforcement mechanism.
While justices do step aside from cases—having done so over 30 times since the current term began in October—the reasons for these recusals are often left to the public’s imagination. Most justices do not provide a written explanation for why they are withdrawing from a matter.
Gabe Roth, executive director of the advocacy group Fix the Court, called the adoption of the software a “positive step,” but questioned the delay.
“The use of conflict-check software is a best practice,” Roth said, highlighting the irony that the nation’s highest court is only now adopting technology that has been standard in lower circuits for nearly two decades.
The software was a collaborative effort between the court’s IT department, the Legal Office, and the Clerk’s Office. By automating the recusal check, the court hopes to reduce the risk of oversight, such as when a justice inadvertently participates in a case involving a company in which they hold stock.
During recent confirmation hearings, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson both signaled a commitment to this type of transparency by releasing lists of organizations that would trigger their recusal. With this new software, the court appears to be institutionalizing that practice across all nine chambers.
