SCOTUS News

Barrett's Book

Amy Coney Barrett's book, after a long time in the making, is due to be released next week. 

I don't begrudge justices writing books. They have been doing so at least from the time of Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote an official biography of George Washington. They were a mixture of legal and non-legal subjects. Here is a list up to 2012. 

The list includes personal accounts, including John Campbell (who resigned to serve the Confederacy). Not released when he was a justice. Earl Warren's autobiography was released after he died. 

Douglas released some personal accounts while he was still a justice. As did Sandra Day O'Connor. John Paul Stevens waited until after he retired. 

Thomas did not. Kavanaugh and Alito are writing books. Kennedy's book will be released soon. On the current Court, only Roberts and Kagan have or will not in the short term have no books. Breyer, however, focused on legal topics in his books.  

There can be ethical concerns, including properly recusing when the publishing firm has a case in front of the justices. Some people oppose this type of profit-making as a grift. 

Eh. There is a public demand. Justices can provide something of interest. Justice Jackson's book was pretty good, and people are interested in her story. People like Sotomayor's children's books. She is scheduled for Stephen Colbert to promote her latest.

I would be surprised if (1) this book had nothing of interest, (2) it was chocked filled with fascinating details. She has an interesting biography to some degree (all those kids!). 

An inside account, however watered down, is of some value. For instance, she will make some comments that express her views, if in some general, often bland sort of way. Having a conversation about these issues has value. Justices will add to it in various respects.  

It is questionable when conservatives promote these books on the conservative circuit. It has a dubious ethical feel of promoting a certain ideological cause. Sotomayor and Jackson apparently sought out more mainstream places like bookstores and libraries. Barrett has talked to a CBS correspondent, too, so far. 

Previews cite her comments defending Dobbs, including citing Ginsburg's criticism of Roe v. Wade. She thought it went too fast. She wanted them to use an equal protection rationale. It was too soon for that.

The Court's sex equality jurisprudence was in its infancy. Also, even Blackmun -- the author of Roe -- rejected an argument that pregnancy discrimination was sex discrimination. Nine men were not ready.  

She had a case of a servicewoman who wanted to have her baby (the government, back then, encouraged abortions). Her brief included an argument for reproductive liberty. Ginsburg strongly defended -- this is what Dobbs was about -- upholding Roe v. Wade.  

Barrett also argues that the people overall are more divided about abortion than other things protected as fundamental rights. Only as a matter of degree. A Roe-like ballot measure almost met the 60% threshold in conservative Florida in 2024. A somewhat less liberal measure might have passed.

I don't want to read the book. I find her confirmation appalling after the Garland blockage. She repeatedly made horrible decisions. Barrett might be the best of the three Trump justices, and better than Alito and Thomas, but only grading on a curve. 

I respect my health too much to read that book. It would cause me angina. It's why I can't read journalistic accounts of the Kavanaugh nomination. 

Barrett says she wrote the book to help people trust the Court. She argued in the past that the justices aren't just partisan hacks. YMMV on her success. 

Lower Courts Criticize 

An excellent article discusses lower court judges' aggravation with the Supreme Court. 

They are being attacked, sometimes with violent threats, for doing their jobs. It has some judges (Republican and Democratic nominees) giving opinions off the record, including some CYA "I'm concerned about the judicial TDS" tool to provide balance to please the editors. 

The Supreme Court does little but reverse them (oh joy! They could do so more often!) and then criticize them for not reading the tea leaves of opaque shadow docket opinions "correctly." 

Kavanaugh, who joined a Gorsuch criticism of lower court judges, grants that sometimes the opinions are unclear. The justices sometimes struggle for agreement, resulting in some confusion. 

How about just letting lower court judges do their job? If you can only agree upon opaque confusion, don't step in. Justice Jackson correctly challenges Kavanaugh's claim that they have to do so. 

[Footnote 8.]

And, yes, it is hard listening to that guy (even quoted on the written page). He is such a tool.  

Summer Order List 

September is here. Children are going back to school. And, we have the last of the three scheduled summer order lists. The new term is rapidly approaching. 

The order list is (as usual) bland. Justice Thomas didn't take part in one decision and (like each conservative) did not explain why. 

These order lists, however, usually have some interesting tidbits. Chris Geidner flags on BlueSky that the Administration was granted argument time in two cases for which it is not a party. 

The case involves limits on the right to counsel (it supports the state) and the Colorado ban on conversion therapy for minors (it would hold the state to the hard-to-meet strict scrutiny standard).  

Execution Postponed 

A Utah execution was postponed because the state supreme court is concerned about dementia issues. Thus, an execution for a crime that took place in the 1980s is delayed yet longer. Just forget about it. 

There are more executions scheduled later this month.