Skip to main content
CivicGate

HR 9786
Introduced Re-checks Congress.gov for new actions and updates the bill's status, and fills in any sponsors, committees, or related bills that are missing. It does not re-pull sponsors/cosponsors/committees/related — those rarely change — and it skips all work if nothing has changed upstream, so it's cheap to click.

Judicial Integrity Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit officers and employees of the judiciary from engaging in official acts affecting personal financial interests.

Introduced Jul 20, 2026

Latest action (Jul 20, 2026) Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Summary

  • Extends federal conflict-of-interest laws to prohibit judicial officers and employees, including Federal judges and Supreme Court justices, from taking official actions that affect their personal financial interests.
  • Allows the Judicial Conference of the United States to issue regulations exempting certain financial interests from conflict-of-interest rules if those interests are deemed too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of judicial services.
  • Requires any exemptions issued by the Judicial Conference to be adopted through formal rulemaking with public notice and comment.

AI-generated plain-language summary of the bill text — neutral, and may be imperfect. See the full text below for the exact wording.

Sponsor (1)

Money behind the sponsor

Top reported contributors to Sydney Kamlager-Dove’s campaign committee (2024 cycle) — who funds the bill’s sponsor, not a claim about this bill. Data from FEC.

  • NOT-EMPLOYED $24,000
  • THE VISTRIA GROUP $21,600
  • NULL $20,500
  • JACK SHAINMAN GALLERY $10,100
  • MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART CHICAGO $8,600

Organizations whose employees gave the most — itemized individual contributions grouped by the donor’s reported employer (FEC Schedule A). Full finance for Sydney Kamlager-Dove → · Outside spending →

Actions (2)

  1. Jul 20, 2026 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. · house
  2. Jul 20, 2026 Introduced in House

Similar bills (6)

Bills with similar text or summary — includes reintroductions across Congresses. Ranked by semantic similarity of the bill text (computed locally); a neutral discovery aid, not a claim the bills are duplicates.

Text versions (1)

  • Introduced in House · Jul 20, 2026

Only one text version is on file, so there’s no earlier version to compare against yet.

Full text

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 20, 2026

Ms. Kamlager-Dove (for herself, Mr. Goldman of New York, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Ramirez, and Mr. Moulton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit officers and employees of the judiciary from engaging in official acts affecting personal financial interests.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Judicial Integrity Act”.

SEC. 2. ACTS AFFECTING A PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST.

(a) Judicial Conflicts of Interest.—Section 208(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after “of the United States Government,” the following: “of the judicial branch of the United States Government (including a Federal judge or a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States),”.

(b) Regulatory Waiver.—Section 208(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking “or” at the end;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking “parties.” and inserting “parties; or”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(5) if, by regulation issued by the Judicial Conference of the United States applicable to all officers and employees of the judicial branch of the United States Government (including Federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court of the United States), with public notice and comment, the financial interest has been exempted from the requirements of subsection (a) as being too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of the services of those officers and employees.”. <all>

Comments

Comments

Loading comments…