A Democratic bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 6 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Judicial Integrity Act. It aims to stop officers and employees of the judiciary, including federal judges and Supreme Court justices, from handling official acts that affect their own personal financial interests. The bill amends title 18 of the United States Code. It also allows for a regulatory waiver if the Judicial Conference of the United States decides a financial interest is too remote or inconsequential. This waiver process requires public notice and comment and must apply to all judicial officers and employees.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill increases transparency by prohibiting judicial officers from acting on personal financial interests.
- Scored +4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Strengthening conflict of interest laws enhances the perceived and actual integrity of judicial due process.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) makes it illegal for judicial branch officers and employees, including federal judges and Supreme Court justices, to take official actions that affect their personal financial interests. This is a positive step because it holds our public officials accountable and helps ensure fairness in the courts.
-
Section 2(b) allows the Judicial Conference of the United States to create exemptions by regulation for financial interests that are too remote or inconsequential. This provides a clear and public process, requiring public notice and comment before any such exemption is allowed.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that create negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill increases transparency by prohibiting judicial officers from acting on personal financial interests. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Strengthening conflict of interest laws enhances the perceived and actual integrity of judicial due process.
- 9/28/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/20/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Daniel GoldmanDemocrat · New York
Henry JohnsonDemocrat · Georgia
Seth MoultonDemocrat · Massachusetts
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Delia RamirezDemocrat · Illinois
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California