Members of Congress on Friday explored ways to increase transparency and accountability of the federal judiciary, though some voiced concern that reforms could jeopardize the security of judges and the unique status of Supreme Court justices.

“As both branches consider how to ensure that the judicial branch keeps pace with our evolving standards for transparency and accountability in a modern democracy, we must be mindful of the safety of our judges and the women and men who assist the courts in fulfilling their responsibilities,” House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said in a statement.

Nadler spoke at a hearing on “The Federal Judiciary in the 21st Century: Ideas for Promoting Ethics, Accountability, and Transparency” before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.

One of the reforms raised by transparency advocates would require posting the financial disclosure statements of judges and justices online. They are currently released to journalists and others who make written requests. But ranking Republican committee member Martha Roby, R-Alabama, said that “with the high profile and sometimes contentious decisions that judges must make, there are unique safety and security concerns.”

One of the witnesses before the committee, Indiana University Maurer School of Law Charles Geyh, said privacy concerns could be alleviated if the financial disclosures black out any information that could breach a judge's privacy—a procedure the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts already performs.

“In other words, this is a redaction problem. Redact all information that threatens the privacy of judges and safety of judges,” Geyh said.

Other witnesses before the House committee discussed whether justices should be required to explain why they recuse themselves in cases. Some also urged the development by the court itself of an ethics code for Supreme Court justices, who don't currently have one. The justices, however, say they voluntarily abide by the code that covers trial and appellate federal judges.

“The impartiality of our judiciary should be beyond reproach, so having a basic ethics code for its members to follow is a natural outgrowth of that common value—one that should be no less rigorously applied to our nation's highest court,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of the advocacy group Fix the Court.

Elena Kagan Justices Elena Kagan, left, and Samuel Alito, right, arrive Thursday to testify in the U.S. House about the U.S. Supreme Court's budget. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ

Justice Elena Kagan recently said Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. is considering promulgating an ethics code for the Supreme Court. But in his 2011 annual report, Roberts said the court has “never addressed” whether Congress could impose ethical standards on the Supreme Court

Roby said that requiring a code of conduct for the Supreme Court may be unconstitutional. “I also understand that Chief Justice Roberts is working on a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices and would like to learn more about the progress that has been made in that effort,” she said.

Amanda Frost, professor at American University Washington College of Law, asserted that “in light of the scope of the justices' power and their role at the head of the federal judiciary, it is anomalous that they alone are free from the ethical constraints that govern the rest of the federal judiciary.”

Frost added: “When the justices on the nation's highest court are free from ethical limits and oversight, that omission undermines the public's faith in the federal courts.”