Washington ( CNN ) -- The Supreme Court has rejected congressional calls for the justices to adhere officially to the same ethics rules binding on other federal judges , including when to recuse in cases involving possible conflicts of interest . `` The Court does not plan to adopt the Code of Conduct for United States Judges through a formal resolution , '' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a letter released Tuesday to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy , D-Vermont . But Roberts said he and his eight colleagues would -- on their own initiative -- continue to follow the same rules as other judges when it comes to accepting and reporting on outside income , honoraria , and gifts . Unlike other members of the federal judiciary , Supreme Court justices decide for themselves whether a conflict of interest exists , requiring disqualification . Like other judges , they file yearly disclosure reports on their financial investments , travels , and any money earned from such things as writing books , giving speeches or teaching . The binding Code of Conduct of U.S . Judges requires recusal when `` impartiality might reasonably be questioned , '' including having a family member directly involved in the case or if there is a financial interest , such as a justice owning stock in a company being sued . Leahy had asked the nation 's highest court to release an internal , informal 1991 resolution clarifying the justices ' unofficial intention to follow the code . `` We will make the 1991 resolution adopting the Judicial Conference regulations on gifts and on outside earned income available to the public , '' wrote Roberts . Leahy had no immediate response to the court 's decision , but groups supporting greater disclosure said they were disappointed . `` The Supreme Court is the highest court in our land and should be held to the highest ethics standards , not the lowest , '' said Common Cause President Bob Edgar . `` This is yet another disappointing sign from the Roberts Court that it considers itself above the laws and rules the rest of us must abide by . '' The judicial code of conduct has recently become a divisive political issue as the justices prepare to hear arguments next month in the high-stakes appeal over the health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama . Political advocacy groups on both sides -- including members of Congress -- have separately called on Justices Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from hearing and deciding the case . Kagan , 51 , was the administration 's top government lawyer handling appeals to the Supreme Court . Her nomination by Obama in May 2010 , and the weeks leading up to it , came at a time when Congress had passed -- and the president signed -- the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act . The health care reform law would significantly change how Americans receive medical services and has been the subject of six current appeals pending at the high court . Twenty-eight states and dozens of individual plaintiffs have opposed the law . Critics say she was directly involved in the administration 's initial legal strategy of the health care law . Congressional Democrats have been among those separately calling on Thomas to pull out , citing his recent lapse in reporting the income of his wife for 13 straight years , as required by federal disclosure laws . Virginia Thomas had worked for , and later founded , her own advocacy group , Liberty Central . Since she has openly opposed the health care bill , many liberals have said her political activities raise questions about Justice Thomas ' own judicial independence and impartiality . The court by tradition will not openly discuss when to step aside in a pending case , and that is true with Thomas and Kagan . Roberts in his year-end report in December said he had `` complete confidence '' in his Supreme Court colleagues to fairly decide whether to remove themselves from hot-button cases such as health care reform . `` The Supreme Court does not sit in judgment of one its own members ' decision whether to recuse in the course of deciding a case , '' he said of his bench mates , while not directly addressing the Kagan and Thomas recusal demands . `` They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a vigorous appointment and confirmation process . I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise . '' That letter prompted Leahy and four fellow Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee this month to seek more information from the high court on the ethics issue . Leahy and other lawmakers are also pushing legislation mandating the Supreme Court open its public sessions to cameras . Again , the ultimate unilateral decision on that would be left with justices , a majority of whom have expressed severe reservations about the proposal .
Supreme Court justices will continue to follow same rules as other judges , says Roberts . He says the court will release an internal , informal 1991 resolution . The document states that a judge should not be removed from office for committing any crime or misconduct in his official capacity " unless and until he has been convicted of such crimes or misconduct." Various groups want two justices to recuse themselves from the health care reform case .