Those who care about the integrity of the Supreme Court should be cautious in advocating for a mandated code of ethics.

Of special concern at the moment is Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving member of the court. His failure to recuse himself from a recent ruling on White House records is fueling the kind of skepticism toward the court and its impartiality that the justices claim to abhor.

That case concerned efforts by former President Donald Trump to block the release of records surrounding the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Although not among the records involved in that dispute, a couple of dozen text messages related to the effort to overturn the election have come to light between Mark Meadows, Trump's last chief of staff, and Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist who happens to be married to Justice Thomas. In those texts following the 2020 election, Ginni Thomas exhorted Meadows to keep up the fight, stall for time, and stop President-elect Joe Biden from assuming office.

When the Supreme Court refused the ex-president's request, one justice registered his dissent: Clarence Thomas.

The standards that apply to every other kind of federal judge make clear that jurists must stand aside when a case presents them with a conflict of interest, or when it even appears to do so.

Thomas' defenders insist that he is free of any conflicts. They make the reasonable point that the activities of a justice's spouse should not be presumed to render him or her incapable of an impartial judgment.

Consider this excerpt from the commentary included in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges: "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct."

If Clarence Thomas were an ordinary federal judge, he would be in clear violation of the code of conduct. A reasonable person could easily conclude that his desire to protect the records — an inclination that put him at odds with every other member of the court — reflected a wish to protect his spouse. His failure to recuse himself in such a case brings the integrity of the court into doubt.

Professional organizations — doctors, lawyers, journalists — police themselves. The Supreme Court should do the same, openly and transparently. And if Clarence Thomas needs to be held accountable, the court itself should do it.