The marble corridors of the Supreme Court of the United States are getting a quiet technological upgrade.
In a move aimed at tightening ethical oversight, the Court has introduced new software designed to flag potential conflicts of interest before cases are heard. The system, developed internally by court technology teams, will automatically compare details about litigants and lawyers with financial and other disclosures maintained by the chambers of each of the nine justices.
The idea is straightforward: let algorithms assist where paperwork once ruled.
For decades, justices have relied primarily on manual reviews and personal judgment to decide whether they should step aside from a case. Recusal decisions remain entirely in their hands. If a justice’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” the Court’s ethics code says, withdrawal is expected — but no external body enforces that standard.
That ethics code itself is a recent development. Adopted in 2023, it marked the first time the Court formally articulated a set of conduct guidelines for its members. Critics welcomed the move but pointed out that it lacked an enforcement mechanism, leaving compliance to individual conscience.
The new “automated recusal checks,” as described by the Court, are not a replacement for human judgment. Instead, they are meant to act as a second set of eyes — digital ones — scanning for financial entanglements or case connections that might otherwise go unnoticed.
To make the system more effective, the Court is also tightening filing requirements. Parties bringing cases will now have to provide more detailed disclosures, including comprehensive lists of entities involved and, where relevant, stock ticker symbols. These enhanced rules will take effect in mid-March.
Transparency advocates have cautiously applauded the development. At Fix the Court, a group that has long pushed for stronger judicial ethics safeguards, the software is viewed as a practical step forward — particularly given its widespread use in lower federal courts.
The change signals a broader shift: even the nation’s highest bench, steeped in tradition, is acknowledging that in the modern era, safeguarding public trust may require more than robes and precedent. It may also require code.
