The document itself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for

The document itself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justi... >For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice. The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct. ---- From a quick scan, I think the inclusion of spouses in some of the suggestions for recusal are probably among the most notable. Also: >A Justice may attend a “fundraising event” of law- related or other nonprofit organizations, but a Justice should not knowingly be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such event. In general, an event is a “fundraising event” if proceeds from the event exceed its costs or if donations are solicited in connection with the event. Is maybe interesting, especially re: Federalist Society and Leonard Leo. At any rate, it says "should" and "may" rather than "must" so YMMV.