Republican Markwayne Mullin rose from his seat at a hearing to challenge a union leader to a fight.

Conservative Christians showed their deep connections with Israel at a march in Washington DC.

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

The Supreme Court’s new ethics code is a nod at the public pressure the court is facing. Beyond that, it will do little to change the justices’ behavior.

First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic:

Hillary Clinton: Hamas must go. Sphere and loathing in Las Vegas The plight of the eldest daughter The meaning of “sir” and “ma’am”

An Unstable Structure

Don’t worry, the Supreme Court said to America yesterday. Though it may not be enforceable, the Court at least has a formal code of conduct now. The Court has been facing an onslaught of public pressure after reports that justices, particularly Clarence Thomas, had engaged in behavior that an average person could deem improper for representatives of the highest court in the land, such as receiving undisclosed gifts from wealthy conservatives. This code, the first in the Court’s history, is signed by all nine justices, and lays out “rules and principles” for the justices’ behavior. Its publication is an acknowledgment that the public is dissatisfied with the Court, but beyond that, it is more symbolic than anything else.

The 15-page document opens with a paragraph-long statement emphasizing that the rules contained within it are largely not new. Their codification is an attempt to “dispel” the “misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.” The code does not explicitly restrict any of the activities, such as undisclosed gifts and travel, that have been drawing attention to the justices in recent months, and its guidelines on recusals in the event of potential conflicts of interest are vague. (A progressive group noted that the document includes should 53 times and must just six.) It also doesn’t acknowledge the existence of any current or past misbehavior, Noah Rosenblum, an assistant law professor at NYU, told me. But the introduction of the code, he said, “does suggest that, in fact, the pressure is getting to the Supreme Court, which, if you believe that the Supreme Court has gone rogue, is a really useful and important thing to know.”

The Supreme Court has long operated, as the justices explain in the opening statement of the code, according to “the equivalent of common law ethics rules,” using guidelines derived from a variety of sources, such as historical practice and the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary. The idea of the Court formalizing its ethics guidelines had been percolating for a while. Back in 2019, Justice Elena Kagan said at a budget hearing that John Roberts was exploring the idea of establishing a code of conduct for just the Supreme Court. In 2022, a group of legal scholars wrote an open letter to Justice Roberts urging the Court to adopt such a code. “We simply believe that a written Code, even if primarily aspirational, would have a broad salutary impact,” the professors wrote.

But public pressure, including from lawmakers in Congress, picked up starting in the spring, when ProPublica released the first in a series of stories about Clarence Thomas’s close relationship with the Republican billionaire Harlan Crow. Other outlets soon published reports on the lavish gifts and trips Thomas received from wealthy businessmen and donors. As Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, told me, Thomas is seen as the “violator in chief.” But, Dorf noted, other justices’ behavior has been called into question as well. Those wishing to present this as a bipartisan issue, Dorf said, have also pointed to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose staff reportedly urged libraries and colleges to buy her books. And conservative Justice Samuel Alito took a luxury fishing trip with Paul Singer, a billionaire who had cases before the Court in following years. (The Supreme Court responded that it works with Sotomayor and her staff to ensure compliance with ethics guidance during book events. Alito said that he never discussed Singer’s business and that he was unaware of his connection to the cases.)

My colleague Adam Serwer, who covers political and legal issues for The Atlantic, told me that “much of the conduct that has exposed the justices as partisan actors” would not seem to be prohibited by these guidelines. The code is not a move toward stricter ethics rules; rather, Adam argued, it might have the opposite effect: “It is an attempt to remove any motivation for Congress to impose restrictions on the Court that have actual teeth.” Adam added that the only apparent punishment for breaking the rules will be public shame—of which the Court has seen plenty lately. As Adam reminded me, “public outrage and tarnishing of the Court’s prestige” is why the justices likely felt pressured to adopt the code in the first place.

The American public has soured on the Court in recent years, in the midst of ethics scandals and controversial decisions on topics such as abortion, student loans, and affirmative action. According to a Pew Research Center poll from July, voters are more likely to see the Supreme Court as conservative than they were a few years ago, and just 44 percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Court—the lowest since the survey began, in 1987. The new code of conduct is not likely to change things. For those concerned that the justices’ behavior compromises the integrity of the Court, “there’s nothing in this code of ethics that should reassure them,” Rosenblum told me.

The Supreme Court is an anomaly in America’s justice system; other judges have to adhere to strict, enforceable ethics rules. To understand the ethics mechanisms ruling most American judges, picture a three-legged stool, Rosenblum suggests. Leg one is a code of conduct, leg two is an advisory body, and leg three is an enforceable disciplinary procedure. The Supreme Court has long had no such stool. Now, with its new code of conduct, it has one leg. That does not make a very stable structure.

Related:

The Supreme Court just keeps deciding it should be even more powerful. The care and feeding of the Supreme Court justices

Today’s News

The House passed a short-term funding bill to successfully prevent a government shutdown. Al-Shifa Hospital says that it has buried more than 170 people in a mass grave. According to the United Nations, only one of 35 hospitals in the Gaza Strip is reportedly operational. A “March for Israel” took place in Washington, D.C., to protest rising anti-Semitism and demand the release of hostages taken by Hamas.

Evening Read

Painting by Debra Cartwright. Source: University of Chicago Library, Special Collections Research Center.

How Black Americans Kept Reconstruction Alive

By Peniel E. Joseph

The Civil War produced two competing narratives, each an attempt to make sense of a conflict that had eradicated the pestilence of slavery.

Black Americans who believed in multiracial democracy extolled the emancipationist legacy of the war. These Reconstructionists envisioned a new America finally capable of safeguarding Black dignity and claims of citizenship. Black women and men created new civic, religious, political, educational, and economic institutions. They built thriving towns and districts, churches and schools. In so doing, they helped reimagine the purpose and promise of American democracy …

Black Reconstructionists told the country a new story about itself. These were people who believed in freedom beyond emancipation. They shared an expansive vision of a compassionate nation with a true democratic ethos.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Have yourself an early little Christmas. Did humans ever live in peace? The panda phase of the British Conservatives

Culture Break

Read. “Sitcom,” a new poem by Jericho Brown.

“Since, her long hair curled, / Combed out, and pushed up / Into a volume so thick, you felt / Both the power of an Afro and / The requirement of a relaxer”

Watch. Nathan Fielder’s newest show, The Curse, is weird and off-putting, yet intensely compelling (streaming on Paramount+ with Showtime).

Play our daily crossword.

In an eight-week newsletter series, The Atlantic’s top thinkers on AI help you wrap your mind around a new machine age. Sign up here.

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Mike Johnson now knows what Kevin McCarthy was dealing with.

At the new speaker’s behest, House Republicans today relied on Democratic votes to avert a government shutdown by passing legislation that contains neither budget cuts nor conservative policy priorities. The bill was a near replica of the funding measure that McCarthy pushed through the House earlier this fall—a supposed surrender to Democrats that prompted hard-liners in his party to toss him from the speakership.

Johnson is unlikely to suffer the same fate, at least not yet. But today’s vote laid bare a reality that’s become ever more apparent over the past year: Republicans may hold more seats than Democrats, but they don’t control the House.

Under McCarthy and now Johnson, Republicans have been unable to pass just about any important legislation without significant help from Democrats. The three most consequential votes this year have been the spring budget deal that prevented a catastrophic U.S. debt default, September’s stopgap spending bill that averted a shutdown, and today’s proposal that keeps the government funded through early 2024. More Democrats than Republicans have voted for all three measures.

[Read: Kevin McCarthy finally defies the right]

GOP leaders have struggled to pass their own proposals on spending bills, leaving the party empty-handed in negotiations with the Democratic-led Senate and the Biden administration. Like McCarthy before him, Johnson pledged that Republicans would advance individual appropriations bills to counter the Senate’s plans to combine them into legislative packages that are too big for lawmakers to adequately review. But in the past week, he’s been forced to scrap votes on two of these proposals because of Republican opposition.

McCarthy surrendered to Democrats in late September after his members refused to pass a temporary spending bill containing deep cuts and provisions to lock down the southern border. When it was his turn, Johnson didn’t even bother to try a conservative approach. On Saturday, he unveiled a bill that maintains current spending levels—enacted by Democratic majorities in 2022—for another two months. He did not include additional funding for either Israel or Ukraine, nor did he include any policy provisions that might turn off Democrats. Johnson’s only wrinkle was to create two different deadlines for the next funding extension; funding for some departments will run out on January 19, while money for the rest of the government, including the Defense Department, will continue for another two weeks after that.

The Louisiana Republican said that the dual deadlines would spare Congress from having to consider a trillion-dollar omnibus spending package right before Christmas, as it has done repeatedly over the past several years. “That is no way to run a railroad,” Johnson said this morning on CNBC. “This innovation prevents that from happening, and I think we’ll have bipartisan agreement that that is a better way to do it.”

Johnson’s decision to avoid a partisan shutdown fight seemed to catch Democrats off guard. The White House initially slammed his proposal, but once party leaders on Capitol Hill realized that the spending bill contained no poison pills, they warmed to it. Democratic support became necessary once it was clear that Republicans would not be able to pass the measure on their own. Conservatives couldn’t even agree to allow a floor vote on the proposal, forcing Johnson to bring it up using a procedure that ultimately required the bill to receive a two-thirds majority to pass.

Republican hard-liners have been no more willing to compromise under Johnson than they were under McCarthy. The conservative House Freedom Caucus, which initially suggested the two-deadline approach, ultimately opposed the bill anyway. “It contains no spending reductions, no border security, and not a single meaningful win for the American People,” the group said in a statement. “While we remain committed to working with Speaker Johnson, we need bold change.”

Buried in that final expression of support for Johnson was the first hint of a warning. Conservatives have given the untested speaker some leeway in his opening weeks. Even McCarthy received something of a grace period; when the speaker negotiated a debt-ceiling deal with President Joe Biden, conservatives voted against the bill but didn’t try to overthrow him. Hard-liners haven’t threatened to remove Johnson, but that could change if he keeps relying on Democratic votes. When McCarthy caved to Democrats on spending for the second time, he lost his job a few days later.

The former speaker and his allies warned his GOP critics that his replacement would find themselves in the same position: managing a majority that isn’t large enough to exert its will. “I’m one of the archconservatives,” Johnson told reporters before the vote, trying to defend himself. “I want to cut spending right now, and I would have liked to put policy riders on this. But when you have a three-vote majority, as we do right now, we don’t have the votes to be able to advance that.”

[Read: ‘We put sharp knives in the hands of children’]

Johnson has now used up one of his free passes. The question is how many more he’ll get. In the coming weeks, the speaker will have to navigate a series of fiscal fights over funding for Israel, Ukraine, and the southern border. The bill that the House passed today buys Congress another two months to hash out its differences over spending, but it doesn’t resolve them. Johnson vowed not to agree to any more “short-term” extensions of federal funding, increasing the risk of a shutdown early next year. The speaker will also have to decide whether to press forward with an impeachment of Biden that could please conservatives but turn off Republicans in swing districts.

In the meantime, frustrated lawmakers from both parties are racing to leave Congress. Since McCarthy’s ouster, nine members, five of them Republicans, have announced their plans to resign or forgo reelection. Many more are likely to do so before the end of the year. After fewer than two terms in the House, GOP Representative Pat Fallon of Texas even considered returning to his old seat in the state legislature, which Republicans have long dominated, before changing his mind today. The frustration extended to other corners of the House GOP. “We got nothing,” another Texas Republican, Representative Chip Roy, lamented to reporters yesterday.  He shouldn’t have been surprised. At the moment, Republicans in the House have a majority in name only.