This is one in a series of reports from States Newsroom on the key policy issues in the presidential campaign.

WASHINGTON — Democrats are increasingly calling for new rules for the nation's highest court, and the 2024 presidential election reflects a clear partisan divide over how Supreme Court justices should behave and whether they should stay on the bench for life.

The elimination of a nearly 50-year-old national right to abortion, the granting of wide latitude to former presidents to avoid criminal responsibility, and multiple ethics scandals exacerbated these questions. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are giving voters very different answers.

Harris' platform calls for “common-sense” reforms that include term limits for judges and an enforceable ethics code that mirrors the rules that apply to lower-level federal judges.

When President Joe Biden announced his proposals for Supreme Court ethics reform about a week after rejecting his re-election bid, Harris issued a statement reiterating the need to “restore confidence” in the court.

“That’s why President Biden and I are calling on Congress to enact important reforms – from imposing term limits on active-duty judges to requiring judges to follow binding ethics rules like every other federal judge. And finally, in our democracy, no one should be above the law. “That’s why we must also ensure that no former president enjoys immunity for crimes committed in the White House,” she said.

While Harris' campaign did not provide further details on her platform, Harris has a track record of supporting such measures. As a senator in 2019, Harris co-sponsored a bill to enforce a uniform code of ethics at all levels of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court.

Trump position

Asked for comment on Trump's stance on enforceable ethics rules or term limits on the Supreme Court, Trump campaign senior adviser Brian Hughes responded: “President Trump has said that in addition to issues of war and peace, there is also the nomination of a justice to the Supreme Court “is important.” the most important decision an American president can make. As president, he appointed constitutional judges to interpret the law as it is written, and he will do so again if voters send him back to the White House.”

The former president has expressed his opposition to change on social media.

Nearly two weeks before Biden's speech in July outlining his ideas for improving the court, Trump wrote on Truth Social that “the radical left Democrats are desperately trying to 'play the referee' by launching an illegal and unconstitutional attack on the court.” Our SACRED United States Community demand.” Supreme Court of the States.”

“The reason these communists are so desperate is because their illegal witch hunts are failing everywhere. The Democrats are trying to interfere in the presidential election and destroy our justice system by attacking their political opponent, ME, and our honorable Supreme Court. We must fight for our fair and independent courts and protect our country. MAGA2024!” He continued, randomly capitalizing words as he often does.

The Republican National Committee stated in its platform that the party unequivocally opposes any change in the number of Supreme Court justices.

“We will keep the Supreme Court as it should always be: with 9 justices. We will not allow the Democratic Party to increase that number by 4, 6, 8, 10 or even 12 judges, as they would like to do. We will block them at every turn.”

At the Economic Club of Chicago on October 15, Trump appeared to accuse Democrats of wanting to add up to 25 new justices to the Supreme Court bench.

Harris' 2024 Supreme Court campaign position does not include a plan to change the number of justices. During her presidential run in 2020, Harris expressed openness to expanding the court, according to Politico and other reports. At the time, Biden continued to oppose changes, including limits on judicial time.

Immunity decision

When Trump was indicted on federal fraud and obstruction charges for his attempts to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election, he extended his appeal for presidential immunity all the way to the Supreme Court.

On July 1, the justices issued a 6-3 opinion granting former presidents criminal immunity for “basic constitutional” duties and presumptive immunity for actions “outside the scope” of official duties, but not immunity for unofficial, personal actions .

Two of the justices who joined the conservative majority decision — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — were appointed by Trump. Judge Amy Coney Barrett, also appointed during Trump's time in the Oval Office, joined them and agreed in part.

Trump's case was delayed for most of 2024 as he was preoccupied with Supreme Court proceedings as he campaigned for a second presidency. The delay ultimately prevented a trial before the November election.

The high-profile case highlighted not only the fact that Trump was being judged by his own appointees, but also that two other judges had recently been exposed in ethics scandals involving Republican donors and appeared to show support for Trump's false claims that he won the 2020 award Choice.

In April 2023, ProPublica revealed that Judge Clarence Thomas had accepted luxury trips and other large gifts from Republican billionaire donor Harlan Crow.

In May of this year, The New York Times published photos of an upside-down American flag flying outside Justice Samuel Alito's home following the violent insurrection by Trump supporters at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. The upside-down flag, a common protest symbol, was adopted by Trump supporters who believed the 2020 election was stolen.

All parties have denied any wrongdoing, and Alito declined to recuse himself from Trump's 2020 election subversion case and another defendant's Jan. 6 case.

The call for a new code of ethics

While the Thomas and Alito scandals garnered the most attention, court observers say many of the justices' actions raise ethical questions.

Gabe Roth, founder of the nonpartisan nonprofit Fix the Court, said: “No justice has behaved completely ethically.”

Roth cited violations by both conservative and liberal judges: the handling of litigants arguing in court, the use of government funds to promote a private book, and instances of judges not recusing themselves from cases in which they appeared to be involved.

“It wasn't the extent of what ProPublica uncovered, but no justice is completely pure when it comes to ethical issues, which is not to say they are all corrupt or compromised in any way.” For me it's simple a fact that the entire institution needs to focus more on ethical leadership,” Roth said.

ProPublica published numerous stories in 2023 about gifts Thomas never disclosed and a luxury fishing trip Alito took with a Republican billionaire arguing in court.

The Supreme Court currently polices itself with its own code of conduct and ensures that justices already follow rules that apply to lower-level federal judges.

Democrats in Congress have introduced several bills aimed at imposing ethics rules on judges and limiting lifetime appointments, such as 18 years.

A bill introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) passed the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee in July 2023. The law aimed to mandate an enforceable code of ethics, tighten rejection and gift disclosure requirements, and establish an appeals process similar to that of lower courts.

An attempt to pass unanimous consent in the Senate in June was blocked by the Senate Judiciary's top Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

“Let us be clear that this is not about improving the court, but about undermining it,” Graham said on the floor.

Roth said no matter who wins the presidency and which party takes control of the Senate, the long-running fight to overhaul ethics and term limits on the Supreme Court will continue – and it should not be partisan.

“When done right, it doesn't favor one party or another or one ideology or another. It’s a little strange that one side is saying they don’t love ethics right now,” Roth continued. “I don't understand.”