11 Rules Supreme Court Justices Have to Follow That Surprise Most Floridians

In November 2023, the Supreme Court adopted its first-ever Code of Conduct, a 14-page document signed by all nine Justices that covers recusal, outside activities, gifts, and financial disclosures.

It was a historic moment for Floridians and Americans across the nation.

It was also only one piece of a larger framework of rules, federal laws, and long-standing traditions that govern what Supreme Court Justices can and can’t do.

Here are 11 of those rules, straight from federal law and official Court documents.

They Serve for Life (Technically)

Under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices serve “during good behavior,” which has traditionally meant lifetime appointments.

A Justice can only be removed through impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate, the same process used for the President.

No Justice has ever been successfully impeached and removed from the Court. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House in 1804 but acquitted by the Senate in 1805.

The lifetime appointment is designed to insulate Justices from political pressure, but it also means there’s essentially no mechanism to force a Justice out unless they commit an impeachable offense.

Their Salaries Can’t Be Reduced While They’re Serving

The Constitution also protects judicial compensation. Under Article III, Congress cannot reduce the salary of a sitting Justice.

This is called the Compensation Clause, and it exists to prevent Congress from using salary cuts to retaliate against Justices for unpopular decisions.

For 2026, Associate Justices earn $306,600 and the Chief Justice earns $320,700.

Congress can (and does) give annual cost-of-living adjustments to judicial salaries, but it cannot lower them.

They’re Capped in Outside Earned Income

Under the Ethics in Government Act and Judicial Conference regulations, Supreme Court Justices are limited to about $31,815 (as of 2025) in outside earned income per year.

This covers things like teaching stipends and speaking fees.

The cap is designed to prevent Justices from supplementing their federal salaries with large outside payments that could create conflicts of interest.

It applies to the same types of income caps that apply to Members of Congress.

Book Royalties Are Exempt From the Outside Income Cap

Book royalties are specifically exempt from the outside earned income cap, which is why several recent Justices have signed multi-million-dollar book deals.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has earned over $3.6 million in book royalties and advances since joining the Court in 2009.

Justice Neil Gorsuch earned $910,000 on his book deals.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a $893,750 advance from Penguin Random House for her 2024 memoir “Lovely One.”

The book royalty exemption is a legal carve-out, not a workaround. It’s written directly into the federal rules governing judicial outside income.

They File Annual Financial Disclosures (Publicly)

Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Supreme Court Justices must file annual financial disclosure statements that are available to the public.

These disclosures cover investments, gifts, spousal income (employer only, not amount), rental income, book income, teaching stipends, and trips funded by third parties.

In 2022, the STOCK Act was amended to require Justices to report stock transactions within 45 days.

The disclosures are imperfect (there are several exemptions and loopholes), but they exist as a matter of federal law and have existed for nearly 50 years.

They’re Supposed to Recuse When Impartiality Could Be Questioned

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, federal judges (including Supreme Court Justices) are required to recuse themselves in cases where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

This includes cases involving financial conflicts, family members, former clients, or personal bias.

Unlike lower federal courts, the Supreme Court has a unique “duty to sit” principle because there are only nine Justices and cases cannot be reassigned if multiple Justices step aside.

Recusal decisions are made by each individual Justice, without external review.

They Have to Follow the New 2023 Code of Conduct

In November 2023, all nine Supreme Court Justices signed a 14-page Code of Conduct containing five canons covering judicial integrity, impartiality, outside activities, financial matters, and political activity.

The Code was the Court’s first-ever formal ethics code.

Critics have noted it lacks an enforcement mechanism.

Supporters say it provides a written framework that didn’t previously exist.

Either way, the nine Justices are now on record as committing to follow a specific set of ethics guidelines.

They’re Supposed to Avoid Most Political Activity

Under the 2023 Code of Conduct and long-standing judicial tradition, Supreme Court Justices are expected to avoid most forms of political activity.

This includes endorsing candidates, attending political fundraisers, making political speeches, and participating in partisan events.

Justices can vote in elections and have personal political views, but they cannot publicly engage in campaign activity the way a regular citizen or even another federal employee might.

Historical examples include Justice Antonin Scalia making speeches at The Federalist Society events and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg making comments about presidential candidates (which she later said she regretted).

They Must Disclose Gifts Over a Threshold

Justices must disclose most gifts they receive above a minimum threshold (around $480 as of recent years, adjusted periodically).

The disclosure requirements are detailed in Judicial Conference regulations and enforced through the annual financial disclosure process.

What’s famously murky is the “personal hospitality” exemption, which allows Justices to accept personal hospitality from friends without disclosing it.

In 2023, the Judicial Conference clarified that the personal hospitality exemption does not cover transportation, lodging funded by companies or entities, or gifts with a financial component beyond simple personal hospitality.

Their Spouses’ Employment Has to Be Disclosed (But Not Their Income)

Justices must disclose their spouse’s employer, job title, and general nature of employment on annual financial disclosure forms.

They do not have to disclose the spouse’s actual income.

This has been a topic of public discussion in recent years, particularly regarding Chief Justice John Roberts’s wife Jane, who works as a legal recruiter and whose earnings have reportedly been in the millions.

The rule applies uniformly to all Justices and is part of the Ethics in Government Act framework.

They Can’t Hold Other Federal Offices or Political Positions

Under federal law and the Constitution, a Supreme Court Justice cannot simultaneously hold another federal office, serve in an elected position, or run for political office.

Accepting any such position would require resigning from the Court.

Historically, Justices have occasionally taken on side roles with Congressional or executive branch approval (Chief Justice Earl Warren chairing the Warren Commission investigation into the JFK assassination is the famous example), but holding a second formal government position at the same time is prohibited.

Justices who want to move into politics or another federal role have to leave the Court entirely first.

The Rules Behind the Robes

The Supreme Court is famously one of the least regulated institutions in the federal government, but that doesn’t mean it operates without any rules.

The nine Justices work under a combination of constitutional requirements, federal laws, Judicial Conference regulations, and (since 2023) their own signed Code of Conduct.

Are the rules perfect?

No. Critics across the political spectrum have raised legitimate questions about enforcement, transparency, and consistency.

Are they nonexistent?

Also no.

The framework is real, the disclosures are public, and the Justices themselves have committed to following both the spirit and the letter of judicial ethics.

Whatever your view on the Supreme Court, understanding the actual rules they operate under is more useful than relying on viral posts or rumors.