Supreme Court’s Seamy Side

Jim and Charlie discuss the behavior of the Justices

Charlie: Every day we see front-page stories aimed at an audience passionate about news. Nothing meets that standard more than the Supreme Court. One ruling alone, last year’s decision to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion, sent shock waves across the country.

Despite that kind of power, this is an institution that lives behind the thickest curtain in government. The public rarely gets to see what goes on behind the scenes. That is changing now. ProPublica, an investigative news site, and the Associated Press, recently published investigations that lifted the curtain a little to reveal an array of conflicts of interest and favored treatment that has helped diminish the standing of the Court. The Supreme Court is made up of the nine most powerful people in the world of law. They sit at the top of one of those Washington pedestals so high you have to strain your neck just to see them. What do they do? They measure laws to see whether they are Constitutional. The positions on the Court are political, as is the process that puts Justices there. But all of that is supposed to be abandoned once a Justice takes the bench.

photo by Claire Anderson

The ProPublica and AP investigations, and scrutiny by the New York Times, question the behaviors of Justices in some key areas, making money and accepting favors.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for example, just got about $3 million for a book contract. Justice Neil Gorsuch made $650,000 for a collection of essays on being a judge. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got a $2 million advance for a book about keeping personal feelings out of judicial proceedings. Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor got advances for their books that well exceeded their $285,000 annual court salaries. 

I’m not suggesting making money is bad. The question is who you are and how you do it. Shouldn’t there be some restrictions on outside business and gifts for Supreme Court Justices? 

Jim: I don’t know, Charlie. If the Supreme Court Justices had not abandoned their careers as lawyers, they’d probably be making as much in a year as Justice Jackson is making from her book. Let’s face it; they are talented people taking a hit on their paychecks to wrestle with some of the thorniest issues of our times. Don’t they deserve to pick up some extra cash on the side? I remember when the news companies that once employed us complained when we made some extra money freelancing or writing a book. We said, “How dare they” raise questions about padding compensation that paled in comparison with other professions that involved far less responsibility yet drew fat paychecks.

The book advances don’t bother me as much as the Justices being used as a draw for the fundraisers the AP documented in its revealing series. The AP obtained email and communications through freedom of information requests to expose an unsavory side of the high court. The series revealed how universities and fundraising organizations used her appearance to lure big donors to a venue where they could rub shoulders with the justice. The dinners or speaking events also just happened to have signed copies of her book for sale. Her staff even pressured the fundraising organizations to boost the number of books she could sign and sell. One university ordered 11,000 Sotomayer books! Did she really sign that many books without getting carpel tunnel syndrome? Or did her staff do it for her? I don’t know. I do know lower court federal judges couldn’t get away with such conduct. The Supreme Court needs some ethics guidelines like the ones being pushed in Congress. But that measure won’t go anywhere with the Republicans in control of Congress. What are the GOP legislators afraid of Charlie? 

Charlie: I don’t think they are afraid of anything. I think they are complicit, which in my book, is lots worse. I suspect in their heart of hearts; they don’t want to have anything to do with trying to push ethics on the high court. It just draws attention to their own corruption. All the money, the free trips on big boats, the vacation home gifts, I think that creates a problem of a different kind. That part is about appearances. Book deals they would not be getting without their positions, juicy speaking engagements, college fundraisers where book purchases are the ticket into the handshake line, all that stuff smells like influence peddling and convenient greed under the mantle of some kind of legal celebrity. Added to that, the fact they were giving up a fat paycheck as a law partner some place doesn’t justify this. They knew the trade they were making: success in a law partnership for a place in American history. I think people expect and deserve more than that. But what’s the solution for this problem Jim, another mass lowering of standards?

Jim: The “standards” for Supreme Court justices already is as low to the ground as a basset hound’s belly. We need higher standards. The Justices should want them. Congress started politicizing the court when it rejected Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987. I didn’t like Bork’s history as someone with a dim view of civil rights law and his accommodating role in the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate. But our old Chicago Tribune boss, the late Jack Fuller, predicted the Bork fight would lead to a politicization of the high court. He was right. I’m as skeptical of polls as you are. The results are overwhelming, though. Between the years 2000 and 2022, the Court’s approval rating among the public stands at forty percent, an all-time low. Its disapproval is at fifty-eight percent, the highest reading in history. The Justices should embrace the legislation pending in the Senate that would impose an ethics code for the Court. They need to embrace higher standards that would promote public confidence in an institution that plays such a vital role in protecting the public interest. Mixing it up with the public at events probably is good for the Justices; they hear from real people. Perhaps Congress should pass something that gives them a small stipend for public appearances but prohibits outside pay for fundraisers staged by vested interests. The documented trips to exclusive hunting lodges just add to the seamy public image. Chief Justice John Roberts needs to exercise some leadership here if he doesn’t want to go down in history as the man who diminished the public’s respect for the court.  

 —James O’Shea and Charles Madigan

James O’Shea is a longtime Chicago author and journalist who now lives in North Carolina. He is the author of several books and is the former editor of the Los Angeles Times and managing editor of the Chicago Tribune.

Charles Madigan is a writer and veteran foreign and national correspondent for UPI and the Chicago Tribune, where he also served as a senior writer and editor. He examines news reporting, politics and world events.

Read, listen, and follow on Substack: