Judges keep failing to disclose their trips and gifts. Don’t expect it to stop anytime soon.

The federal judiciary is essentially exempt from any ethics enforcement.

Another day, another judicial ethics quandary.

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed justice who tossed out the former president’s classified documents case earlier this year, failed to accurately disclose her attendance at three conservative conferences, ProPublica reported Tuesday.

The conference controversy casts new scrutiny on Cannon following a string of questionable decisions she made in the documents case, two of which have already been overruled by a circuit court.

“Judge Cannon keeps making mistakes both inside and outside the courtroom,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told B-17. “Here’s someone who knows what she’s supposed to do and still doesn’t comply with the law.”

A representative for the Southern District of Florida did not immediately respond to a request for comment from B-17.

Cannon’s disclosure debacle is only one example on an ever-growing list of ethical indiscretions that have drawn attention to America’s seemingly untouchable jurists in recent months.

Cannon’s spotty disclosures harken back to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ more egregious disclosure failures, which included a nine-day yacht vacation to Bali with GOP donor Harlan Crow and multiple rides aboard the billionaire’s private jet.

Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito accepted a luxury fishing trip from a different conservative billionaire who served as chairman of a group that filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court asking it to block student loan forgiveness.

So, why do the country’s judges keep shirking the rules?

Because they can.

“Federal judges are gods, and they can get away with anything,” Rahmani said.

ProPublica reported that Cannon thrice failed to comply with a 2006 rule meant to raise awareness of judicial attendance at privately paid conferences that could impact judges’ decision-making on the bench.

According to the outlet, Cannon did not disclose that she attended a May 2023 banquet honoring the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University, a conservative law school. More than 30 conservative federal justices, members of Scalia’s family, and several fellow members of the conservative Federalist Society also attended, ProPublica reported.

Who judges the judges?

But even with rules in place — guardrails the Supreme Court lacked entirely until earlier this year — legal experts said there’s typically little consequence for a justice that runs afoul of ethics expectations.

Federal judges serve for life and, for all intents and purposes, police themselves. Impeaching a judge, meanwhile, requires a two-thirds Senate vote — a nonstarter given the extreme polarization of Congress.

“There currently aren’t a lot of remedies,” Scott Lemieux, professor of political science at the University of Washington and an expert in constitutional law, told B-17.

That leaves the higher courts as the sole, remaining would-be enforcers of judicial ethics. But legal experts said self-policing within the judiciary is far from fair.

“There’s a lack of a central system, and judges are reluctant to judge other judges on their errors,” said John J. Perlstein, a Los Angeles litigator.

As pressure on the judiciary heats up after several recent SCOTUS scandals, court watchers are increasingly eager for a foolproof way to keep justices in line.

Earlier this summer, President Joe Biden called on Congress to implement term limits and an enforceable code of ethics for Supreme Court justices.

The nine Supreme Court justices did agree to a code of conduct last year, modeling their new guidelines after the rules that govern federal judges. But legal experts said both ultimately lack meaningful enforcement, rendering the rules essentially for show only.

“It’s a huge problem,” Rahamni said. “People don’t have faith in the justice system.”

California Rep. Adam Schiff introduced a bill earlier this year that would expand penalties for federal judges who violate ethics rules. The legislation would apply executive conflict of interest statutes to the federal judiciary.

But even that solution invites a paradox.

“The judges could just rebuke it,” Lemieux said.