In response to mounting criticism surrounding gifts and trips from wealthy benefactors to certain justices, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced the adoption of a code of ethics for its justices. This groundbreaking move aims to address concerns regarding the impartiality and integrity of the Court.

Recent revelations have brought attention to the issue, with the disclosure that Justice Clarence Thomas received favors from Harlan Crowe, a Republican donor. Other justices, including Justice Samuel Alito, have also faced scrutiny for their relationships with donors and activists. Such revelations have significantly eroded public trust in the Court.

NPR legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, has carefully examined the new ethics code and highlights its main points. The code attempts to provide specific guidelines on acceptable conduct for justices, but currently lacks any formal enforcement mechanism.

One area of focus in the code is financial transactions, which are permitted as long as they do not pertain to matters before the Court. The code also emphasizes the importance of adhering to existing disclosure provisions. Additionally, it stipulates that justices must recuse themselves if a family member, spouse, child, or grandchild has a case before the Court or acts as a lawyer before the Court.

The code also addresses the issue of spouses' involvement in political causes that come before the Court. If a spouse or a child living with the justice has a substantial interest in the outcome of a case, financial or otherwise, the justice is expected to recuse themselves. However, when it comes to book tours, the code permits justices to utilize office resources for scheduling trips and accept reasonable expense compensation. Justices are even allowed to appear at events where their books are being sold.

While the new code provides specific guidelines, it lacks an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. Violations of the code may not have any immediate consequences, casting doubt on its overall effectiveness.

Despite this landmark step towards establishing ethical standards, critics argue that the code falls short due to the absence of enforcement measures. Groups like Take Back the Court, a progressive organization, contend that the code reads more like a friendly suggestion rather than a binding and enforceable guideline. Ethics expert Stephen Gillers acknowledges the code's detailed nature but expresses concern about its lack of enforcement provisions.

As the U.S. Supreme Court introduces its first-ever code of ethics, the question of accountability remains. The new code represents an important milestone in addressing concerns surrounding impartiality and integrity. However, without a mechanism for enforcement, the Court's critics are unlikely to be fully satisfied.

NPR's Totenberg concludes that while the code exceeds expectations in terms of detail, its lack of enforcement undermines its effectiveness and could be seen as its Achilles heel.

The Supreme Court's efforts to regain public trust and uphold the highest ethical standards will undoubtedly continue to be scrutinized in the coming months and years.