The Supreme Court announced Monday that it has adopted an ethics code for the first time, a step that comes in response to its justices particularly conservative Justice Clarence Thomas facing scrutiny for undisclosed gifts from wealthy political donors.

But Democratic senators and progressive court reform groups are already saying it does next to nothing because there is no way to enforce it.

All nine justices signed onto the courts new code of conduct. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh have previously voiced support for a formal ethics code in the aftermath of stories by ProPublica and other news outlets revealing Thomas previously undisclosed ties to conservative megadonor Harlan Crow.

The undersigned Justices are promulgating this Code of Conduct to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court, begins the 15-page document, which lays out rules saying the justices should preserve the integrity of the court and convey a sense of impartiality in all cases.

Heres a copy of the courts new ethics code:

The justices state that most of the rules spelled out in the code are not new and that the court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics that other federal judges are bound to. There has been a misunderstanding, the justices say, that because the court has not had a formal code of ethics, they havent been restricted by any ethics rules.

To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct, said the justices.

In fact, there is no misunderstanding. The nations highest court has never had a formal code of ethics, and the result is that some justices have been taking luxurious gifts from powerful people with interests before the court, and then not reporting those gifts the very definition of unethical.

All other federal judges are banned from this kind of behavior, and it is spelled out in their code of ethics. The only rule that Supreme Court justices have had to follow that is similar to lower court judges is that they have to file annual financial disclosure reports. Beyond that, though, the idea has been that the Supreme Court justices dont need a code of conduct because they can keep themselves honest. Except theyve shown that they cant.

The courts new code states that justices should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. That includes not allowing social or political relationships to influence official conduct and making sure not to knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Justice.

This sounds a lot like the kinds of activities that Thomas was participating in, as reported in a series of bombshell articles by ProPublica. For more than 20 years , Thomas was treated to luxury vacations by Crow that included cruises on his yacht, flights on his private jet and spending time with Crows friends at his private resort. Thomas reported none of this.

Crow also bought property from Thomas , who didnt report that. Crow also paid private school tuition for a child that Thomas said he was raising as a son, and that wasnt reported either.

In the months since the ProPublica stories dropped, Democrats have been demanding that the Supreme Court create a code of ethics for itself, and vowing to pass legislation to do it if the court wont. But the reality is that the votes simply arent there to pass a bill telling the Supreme Court how to behave.

And while Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been critical of the courts inaction, he hadnt taken any particularly aggressive action in response to it until recently.

Last week, Durbin scheduled a committee hearing to vote on issuing subpoenas to Crow and another prominent conservative legal activist with ties to Thomas, Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society. But the vote was suddenly postponed amid GOP efforts to prevent it from happening.