PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 3, 2025
Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2025
This bill establishes the Office of Inspector General for the Judicial Branch to investigate alleged misconduct in the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court; to conduct and supervise audits and investigations; and to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse.
People & committees
Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1811 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1811 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1811 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1811 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2025 would create an inspector general to investigate misconduct in the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The office would investigate and report concerns, but could not reconsider the merits of court rulings or discipline judges. Judicial employees who lawfully assist relevant investigations would receive protection against workplace retaliation and could sue for relief.
This Act may be cited as the Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2025.
There is established for the judicial branch of the Government the Office of Inspector General for the Judicial Branch
conduct investigations of alleged violations of the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States or any other alleged misconduct in the United States Supreme Court
The Inspector General shall not have the authority to— (1) investigate or review any matter that is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling by any judge, justice, or court; or (2) punish or discipline any judge, justice, or court.
No officer, employee, agent, contractor, or subcontractor in the judicial branch may discharge, demote, threaten, suspend, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any possible violation of Federal law or regulation, or misconduct, by a judge, justice, or any other employee in the judicial branch, which may assist the Inspector General in the performance of duties under this chapter.
An employee injured by a violation of subsection (a) may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate relief.
The Chief Justice would appoint the inspector general after consulting the Senate majority and minority leaders, the House Speaker, and the House minority leader. The term would be four years, with unlimited reappointments by the Chief Justice.
The head of the Office shall be the Inspector General, who shall be appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States after consultation with the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives.
The Inspector General shall serve for a term of 4 years and may be reappointed by the Chief Justice of the United States for any number of additional terms.
The Chief Justice could remove the inspector general and would have to tell both chambers of Congress the reasons.
The Inspector General may be removed from office by the Chief Justice of the United States. The Chief Justice shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress.
The office would investigate alleged misconduct outside the Supreme Court under the referenced chapter 16 process. It would separately investigate alleged Supreme Court ethics-code violations and other Supreme Court misconduct. Both duties concern allegations that may require oversight or other action by the judiciary or Congress.
(1) conduct investigations of alleged misconduct in the judicial branch (other than the United States Supreme Court) under chapter 16 that may require oversight or other action within the judicial branch or by Congress; (2) conduct investigations of alleged violations of the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States or any other alleged misconduct in the United States Supreme Court that may require oversight or other action within the judicial branch or by Congress;
The office would also conduct and supervise audits and investigations, work to prevent and detect waste, fraud and abuse, and recommend changes to laws or regulations governing the judiciary. These are assigned duties, not evidence that those results would occur.
(3) conduct and supervise audits and investigations; (4) prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse; and (5) recommend changes in laws or regulations governing the judicial branch.
The inspector general could obtain information or assistance from federal, state and local agencies and other entities. This authority would include all information kept in the course of business by the four judicial bodies named in the bill.
(2) obtain information or assistance from any Federal, State, or local governmental agency, or other entity, or unit thereof, including all information kept in the course of business by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the judicial councils of circuits, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the United States Sentencing Commission;
The inspector general could issue subpoenas requiring witnesses to attend and testify or produce records. If someone refused to comply, the subpoena could be enforced through a civil lawsuit. The inspector general could also administer oaths and take sworn statements.
(3) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses, and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, which subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by civil action; (4) administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit;
The inspector general could hire staff under the referenced federal civil-service hiring, job-classification and pay rules. The office could also obtain services under title 5, section 3109, with daily rates capped at the equivalent rate for Executive Schedule level IV, a federal pay level.
(5) employ such officers and employees, subject to the provisions of title 5, governing appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates; (6) obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5 at daily rates not to exceed the equivalent rate for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of such title;
The inspector general could contract with public agencies and private persons for audits, studies, analyses and other services. That authority and related payments would depend on funding provided in advance through appropriations laws; the provision does not itself supply a dollar amount.
(7) the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, to enter into contracts and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other services with public agencies and with private persons, and to make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the duties of the Office.
For misconduct investigations outside the Supreme Court under proposed section 1023(1), the inspector general would have to wait for a specified procedural event: denial of a petition for review by a circuit judicial council under section 352(c), or referral or certification of a matter to the Judicial Conference under section 354(b).
The Inspector General shall not commence an investigation under section 1023(1) until the denial of a petition for review by the judicial council of the circuit under section 352(c) of this title or upon referral or certification to the Judicial Conference of the United States of any matter under section 354(b) of this title.
(1) conduct investigations of alleged misconduct in the judicial branch (other than the United States Supreme Court) under chapter 16
The office could not investigate or review matters directly related to the merits of a judge's, justice's or court's decision or procedural ruling. It also could not punish or discipline any judge, justice or court.
The Inspector General shall not have the authority to— (1) investigate or review any matter that is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling by any judge, justice, or court; or (2) punish or discipline any judge, justice, or court.
The inspector general would have to report annually to the Chief Justice and Congress and promptly report matters that may require their action. The inspector general could flag sensitive material, and Congress could receive such a report in a closed session.
The Inspector General shall— (1) make an annual report to the Chief Justice and to Congress relating to the activities of the Office; and (2) make prompt reports to the Chief Justice and to Congress on matters that may require action by the Chief Justice or Congress.
If a report contains sensitive matter, the Inspector General may so indicate and Congress may receive that report in closed session.
The inspector general would have to report promptly to the Attorney General whenever there were reasonable grounds to believe federal criminal law had been violated.
In carrying out the duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall report expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law.
Judicial-branch officers, employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors would be prohibited from retaliating against an employee for lawfully supplying information or assisting an investigation that may help the inspector general. The investigation must concern possible federal-law or regulatory violations, or misconduct, by a judge, justice or other judicial employee. An injured employee could bring a civil lawsuit for appropriate relief; the bill does not specify particular remedies.
No officer, employee, agent, contractor, or subcontractor in the judicial branch may discharge, demote, threaten, suspend, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any possible violation of Federal law or regulation, or misconduct, by a judge, justice, or any other employee in the judicial branch, which may assist the Inspector General in the performance of duties under this chapter.
An employee injured by a violation of subsection (a) may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate relief.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, lists introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on March 3, 2025. It does not establish the bill's subsequent progress or enactment status.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T14:49:45Z. 2025-03-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-03-03: Introduced in House 2025-03-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials were not supplied, and absence in other versions or accompanying materials is not established.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit or special exemption warranting a finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI