The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Biden Invites Justice Breyer To Stay In The Lincoln Bedroom
Breyer is not retired, yet.
Today Justice Breyer formally announced his retirement in a letter to the President. As usual, with Breyer, nothing is simple. His retirement is contingent on several conditional statements. Breyer wrote that "I intend this decision to take effect when the Court rises for the summer recess this year (typically late June or early July) assuming that by then my successor has been nominated and confirmed." So, for at least the next five months or longer, Breyer remains on the Court.
Later, Breyer appeared at the White House alongside the President in the Roosevelt Room. Breyer made brief, rambling remarks that touched on the Gettysburg Address. After Breyer finished, the President invited Justice Breyer and his wife to spend a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, which has a handwritten copy of the Gettysburg Address.
President Biden invites Justice Breyer and his wife to come and stay in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House.
— Matt Viser (@mviser) January 27, 2022
My mind immediately jumped to controversies over how President Clinton rewarded his donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom. My next thought was, the United States still has cases pending in the Supreme Court, both as a party and as amicus. Again, Justice Breyer hasn't retired yet. And, to be frank, Breyer hasn't stepped down until he finally steps down. We know announcements of resignation can be modified or even rescinded. In my view, making an offer for a night in the White House, however gracious, to a sitting Supreme Court Justice, strikes me as problematic.
Breyer may have a precedent to fall back on. Remember when Justice Scalia took a hunting trip with Vice President Cheney? Scalia vigorously defended his independence. Then again, Scalia's opinion distinguished his conduct from a private gathering at the White House:
The principal point, however, is that social courtesies, provided at Government expense by officials whose only business before the Court is business in their official capacity, have not hitherto been thought prohibited. Members of Congress and others are frequently invited to accompany Executive Branch officials on Government planes, where space is available. That this is not the sort of gift thought likely to affect a judge's impartiality is suggested by the fact that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U. S. C. App. §101 et seq., p. 38, which requires annual reporting of transportation provided or reimbursed, excludes from this requirement transportation provided by the United States. See §109(5)(C); Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, Financial Disclosure Report: Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees, p. 25 (Jan. 2003). I daresay that, at a hypothetical charity auction, much more would be bid for dinner for two at the White House than for a one-way flight to Louisiana on the Vice President's jet. Justices accept the former with regularity. While this matter was pending, Justices and their spouses were invited (all of them, I believe) to a December 11, 2003, Christmas reception at the residence of the Vice Presi-dent—which included an opportunity for a photograph with the Vice President and Mrs. Cheney. Several of the Justices attended, and in doing so they were fully in accord with the proprieties.
But Biden did not invite all of the Justices. He invited only one of them for a private stay.
Justice Breyer probably won't take Biden up on this offer. And the White House may see fit to withdraw the offer.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I greatly dislike both Breyer and Biden, but this suggestion of impropriety is just plain stupid.
Likewise. I can see an argument that it's improper on the theory that (it looks like) it might be "payment" for the retirement decision, but I think that's neither true nor notably problematic even if it were true.
Who would buy that argument, though? "Give up life tenure on the most powerful court in the country, and I'll let you stay in a White House bedroom for one (1) night!"
"Who would buy that argument, though?"
Half-educated, bigoted clingers.
This blog's core audience.
better than an uneducated bigoted poltroon, such as yourself, "Reverend"
Get an education, Frank.
Start with standard English.
Backwater religious schooling doesn't count.
I am not sure, and I don't want to invest any more imagination in the theory. I'll wait until someone makes an actual argument that there's a problem here. Until then, I maintain my position that there is no problem in the offer or in a prospective acceptance.
I agree that it's stupid. But it's useful if only as a counter-example to the equally stupid accusations of impropriety against the conservative justices.
Agreed (although I would replace "greatly dislike" with "disagree with on lots of issues.")
But now I suppose we have to get ready for a Punch-and-Judy debate over duck-hunting versus sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom.
You are assuming sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom is a reward. How would you like to sleep on a 19th Century bed? Imagine the body fluids imbued into it over 160 years, before the hand held shower unit. It is a punishment. No toilets. No sleep. No health care of any value. No wonder people killed each other so readily. They were doing each other a big favor.
The new tenants always swap out furniture (especially mattresses) every term, Behar. If you think Trump would let him and his family sleep on a negro family's mattresses then you're craz...mistaken.
If you think Trump would let him and his family sleep on a negro family's mattresses
You really are a reprehensible piece of shit, whomever you're a sock puppet for.
Well, when you add in the fact Biden bought ice cream yesterday when it was 34F outside you begin to see the whole picture…
A more rounded rendition of the concern might be that Biden spent the afternoon yesterday shuffling around town shopping and eating ice cream and then called a lid at 3pm, when we're supposedly on the brink of war with Rooosha.
And yes, then proceeding to leak Breyer's planned retirement to the press that same afternoon (apparently months before Breyer was planning to announce it) does start to enhance the picture a bit.
But did he get more scoops than whomever he was with at the time?
It would be one thing if the invite was for after he retired. This seems wholly inappropriate now, though.
If the invitation is extended now, what difference does that make?
Let me put it this way. I see no problem with rewarding someone for a long career of public service. I can't see how a night in a strange bed, no matter what building it's located in, is a big enough deal to influence someone, but then again I'm not easily impressed.
Well, maybe it wouldn't impress someone willing to spend more time in Venango County than it takes to drive through it . . .
Backwater, right-wing hayseeds are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Venango County is quite beautiful, although I must admit I'm partial to next door Forrest. My wife and I spent a lot of our free time in both last year driving around in the antique right hand drive convertible trying to beat COVID cabin fever. Thinking about a weekend/holiday cabin up that way.
Have to admit, I'm always more impressed with anything nature can do over people or places. Just like in the West, Mt Rushmore and the unfinished Crazy Horse Monument were a huge letdown after having just come from Devil's Tower, and I've yet to see anything as amazing as Yellowstone, and I've been to much of Europe. Driving across the Alps came close. It left far more of an impression on me than the Roman Forum, Colosseum or Vatican did.
You have no idea what impressed means until you wake in your tent in the middle of The Badlands during full moon at 3AM to a lone bison standing 5 feet outside your front door, Or to listen at night to the wolves all around you, or to see the sunrise over Monument Valley, or to stand looking down into Meteor Crater, AZ and think about the force it took to create that. Nothing done by people can even come close.
Venango County is a declining, left-behind stain, the type of place in which the lone black guy in a group staying at a cabin can get shot nine times -- several times from behind, reportedly -- and the White police officers and White district attorney (whose name is, appropriately, White) let all of the White guys (including the White guy who admits he fired at least some of the shots) go home with no charges filed. (Cyril Wecht, the state police, and a plaintiffs' lawyer or two seem destined to impose adult supervision on those hayseeds.)
Venango County is emptying because most modern Americans don't want to live in such an archaic, can't-keep-up, uncompetitive backwater -- and it is the type of place in which you choose to live.
Forest County is no better. Anywhere in Pennsylvania more than 20 or so miles from Pittsburgh and 40 or so miles from Philadelphia might as well be in Kentucky or Mississippi. Plenty of uneducated, intolerant, economically inadequate people and communities . . . a bunch of deer . . . and not much else.
What is it about Pennsyltucky -- a nice way of putting it -- that impressed you enough to cause you to reside there?
I don't often see a harangue against "archaic, can't-keep-up, uncompetitive backwater[s]" and "uneducated, intolerant, economically inadequate people and communities" incorporated into a defense of Philadelphia.
I'd add that Justice Scalia disagrees with you.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If this bothers Prof. Blackman, perhaps he might opine with respect to the point that Ginni Thomas is a prominent, un-American wingnut who takes money from and raises money for a number of the conservative organizations with frequent business before the Supreme Court.
This is part of why you are mired at a bottom-scraping institution, Prof. Blackman. It also is the reason Prof. Volokh invited you to join his White, male, right-wing blog. I sense you'll call it a wash.
You realize that capitalizing "white" is problematic, according to a mainstream, strong liberal/libertarian media institution?
https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-9105661462
So?
OK, Boomer. Make is personal or STFU. Resign, and be replaced by a diverse. It is high time. Diversity is the strength of our nation.
can you get any more White than "Sleepy" Joe and Peppermint Patty Jen Ginger Psaki?
Um, Mike Pence much?
Did Pence object to turning schools into racial jungles?
By any standard, the distinction Blackman makes between Scalia and Breyer is weak sauce indeed. He certainly is partisan.
"I intend this decision to take effect when the Court rises for the summer recess this year (typically late June or early July) assuming that by then my successor has been nominated and confirmed."
How can you confirm a nominee to a post that's not vacant?
That said, yeah, I don't see much of an impropriety here.
I see there's precedent for doing it, though.
Earl Warren and Sandra Day O'Connor each resigned effective upon confirmation of the successor.
The interesting question is, can he retract the resignation once he sees who the nominee is?
Up to the point of confirmation, almost certainly yes. Earl Warren changed his mind, though that was at the request of LBJ because of the complexities around two open seats and Abe Fortas's short stint on the Court.
Less certain would be after confirmation...don't think it's ever happened.
And William O. Douglas tried to stay on the court after he resigned, and even after his successor was confirmed.
I pretty much take it that it would be too late if he'd actually waited until the confirmation, based on past practice. But it's quite possible he might be appalled by whoever Biden nominates, and try to hang on in response.
Does any reasonable person believe that Breyer's judicial decisions would be influenced by an offer to stay in a White House bedroom?
Maybe. Does it have a really large screen TV?
Yeah, how many times does he get to bowl?
No, but the optics don't look good. Separation of powers, chambers, and bedrooms. Or have group sleepover.
A more serious ethical problem during the past few years was President Trump listing sitting judges, by name, whom he was thinking of appointing to the Supreme Court. Ambitious judges on those lists certainly wouldn't have wanted to get crossways with the Duce and lose their places on the lists ...
If it weren't for Trump, judges would have *absolutely no idea* what kind of rulings would increase their chance of being nominated for the Supreme Court.
A more serious ethical problem during the past few years was President Trump listing sitting judges, by name, whom he was thinking of appointing to the Supreme Court.
How about announcing that your nominee is guaranteed to be a black woman?
I think of Scalia as an unusually strong writer, and I regard the Cheney recusal memorandum as one of his finest efforts. I would not have believed that it was possible to misunderstand his point.
I stand corrected.
There is no legal opinion so clear that Josh Blackman cannot misread it in service to a stupid point.
It's like his superpower.
It is four dimensional chess. I mean the sentence immediately following the sentence JB bolded completely undercuts JB's point. [Garbled] and that is how JB is appointed Solicitor General.
If you make a sufficiently large donation, you get to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom with the corpse of Lincoln himself. This service, of course, is only purchased by people with...special tastes. I'm not for a moment suggesting the Justice Breyer is into that sort of thing.
Don't ask, Don't Smell.
The difference between "perverted" and "having unconventional tastes" is...a billion dollars.
Surely this eminent legal ethicist made comments about Barret's massive WH party and her White House balcony presentation by the President? What's that? He just wrote a bunch of thirst posts about her? Ah.
FRIEND OF THE COURT LOBBYING & JUDICIAL ETHICS
I am intrigued by this:
"the United States still has cases pending in the Supreme Court, both as a party and as amicus."
Party status is one thing, amicus quite something else.
Is it a big deal here because of the identity of the amicus (The USA), or is amicus generally a status potentially giving rise to conflict-of-interest concerns beyond the applicable disclosure requirements akin to those pertaining to parties?
Suppose Professor Nonblackman at Swampland School of Law on the Bayou were to submit an amicus brief in a constitutional challenge to a new state law restricting feticide. -- No problem because he is employed by a private law school, and he is obviously qualified to educate a Bayou County trial judge about the finer points of constitutional scrutiny because that's actually part of his day job. And why not -- on a gratuitous ("pro bono") basis -- provide a refresher to a former student now sitting robed on a bench wielding real power of say-so and rule-so, but mostly in cases that don't involve cutting-edge jurisprudential issues and their intersectionality with lawful deployment of surgical instruments. -- So far, so good and beneficial to the marketplace of contending legal positions and the vigor of the adversarial interchange. Socratic or otherwise.
Now, let's suppose the hypothetical amicus offering comes from a Professor of Jurisprudence at the state's flagship law school (or from an equally misnomered Texas South instead of South Texas law-learning agora for that matter, where the former, unlike the latter, is state-founded and as much as state-funded).
Let's call him Professor Soloman Paragrafsky.
DUMPING THE STATE-PAYROLLED AMICUS
Suppose Professor Paragrafsky then gets fired -- or involuntarily retired -- on the basis that he abused his official position as a state-funded professor of law to promote a legal and policy position contrary - if not hostile -- to that of the State, and did so under the Banner and Seal of the Lone Star Flagship College of Law. And let]s assume it would be factually indisputable that he did so through his amicus submission under the state university's emblem and letterhead.
Professor Paragrafsky then files a Section 1983 suit complaining of First Amendment violations and wrongful termination by the Board of Flagship University (or his Dean), which ends up in the Middle District of Lonestar before a federal judge who happens to be a graduate of and current adjunct professor at the same law school of great state and national renown.
Should or must the federal judge recuse? Or only if he or she has a chance of taking over one of ex-Prof Paragrafsky's regular classes in the capacity of adjunct professor of law?
What if the scenario arises in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals where a panel member has an extrajudicial teaching gig at the same law school in question? Should the panel proceed with only 2, or is there no real problem because 2 of 3 are not even arguably tainted by way of an appearance of possible partiality.
And as to the merits, should Paragrafsky prevail and be reinstated, and if so, why?
Going beyond the posited specifics of the hypothetical: What is the status of an amicus in court when the amicus is a public employee?
Just watch out when Hillary Rodman invites you for a "Sleep over" at Fort Marcy Park (just claimed another "Suicide" Openly Gay Mayor of Hyattsville MD, wonder what his scandal was, maybe he wasn't Gay?)
I have to admit, even by the incredibly low standards that I have for Josh Blackman's legal analysis, he somehow still manages to scoot under. I'm not even mad- this post is impressive!
There's the usual stupid argument.
Then the usual addition of pointless asides (of course he thought of Clinton, of course he described Breyer's remarks as both short AND rambling- without actually, you know, telling us what they are.
But the real cherry on the Blackman sundae is that he took this passage from Scalia, and not only didn't understand it at all, but somehow managed to REVERSE THE MEANING.
Truly, this is some impressive work coming from the South Texas College of Law.
But then
You don't get to South Texas College Of Law Houston -- let alone stay there for a decade -- with strong credentials and arguments.
You can become a featured player at a White, male, right-wing blog, though, with Prof. Blackman's level of contribution!
(UCLA and Georgetown deserve better than this . . . unless they don't learn from it.)
I usually try to comment politely, and sometimes I agree with Professor Blackman.
But this is just such total bullshit!
Laziness, shamelessness, and partisanship. All three at the top of their game.
If you think this stinks where's your outrage over the activities of Ginni Thomas and Justice Barrett? Those reek like a landfill whereas this is like a cube of slightly off cheese.
Oh right, the partisan hack thing. Stick to legal analysis.
It's not a good look. But only mildly so. It's not like anyone still harbors thoughts that the court isn't politicized. As for how this might impact Breyer on the cases that are still before the court, does anyone really wonder how Breyer will vote on the controversial cases that remain? Meh.
It's Biden's apology for screwing up Breyer's retirement announcement timetable.
Probably. They did mess that up big time, assuming it wasn't a matter of successfully pressuring him to retire.
Pretty weird when a 78 year-old guy invites an 83 year-old guy for a sleepover. Then again, it's regressives entertaining themselves, so nothing surprising.
Heh. I took the opportunity to look up who Scalia was with on the hunting trip of his death in Texas: C. Allen Foster...a powerful lawyer that had many a business in the SC during Scalia's tenure (but I'm sure that was harmless). Anyway he and Scalia both belonged to a secretive hunting club and this is what he (Foster) said about his love of hunting:
"I am pleased to report that I’ve killed lots of elephants, lions, buffalo, leopards, kudu, deer and the last legally shot black rhinoceros, together with more than 150,000 birds of various species. When the last duck comes flying over with a sign around his neck ‘I am the last duck,’ I will shoot it.”
Seems that people like this exist.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-company-scalia-kept
That person sounds likes a natural fit with Antonin Scalia, inspiration for ASSLaw.
Liberals are allowed to do whatever they want without scrutiny. If Biden dropped down on both knees, yanked Beyer's pants down, and slap his bare ass the media would spin it to be a fun practical joke that showed Biden was full of youth and vigor.
You think the media, let alone a rank and file brainwashed leftist, is going to care he spends the night literally in bed with the same people he proverbially sleeps with every single day?
LOL comment after comment roasting this post, and then Jimmy 'yeah, this proves the double standard!'
Did Jimmy read Blackman's post? Did he bother to read any comments even before he slammed this bit of partisan self-validation down?
Just dropping a truth bomb. I know they hurt. Show me on the doll where it hurts Sarc.
You are a reprehensible, antisocial bigot, Jimmy the Dane . . and a solid Republican; a loyal and typical Volokh Conspiracy fan; and one of my favorite culture war casualties.
Jimmy, you're embarrassing yourself. You should consider switching to a lower class blog.
You’re a weird dude
Don't misgender me!
I call everyone dude.
Have you no sense of decency, sir?
No the leftist media lost that a long time ago.
Now Jimmy the Dane is calling Professor Blackman a leftist.
I’ve heard it all.
Much ado over nothing really. There's too much separation between Biden (he's not "the government") and Breyer to really make this any kind of real impropriety.
Frankly I think Biden meant it for 'when you're retired' come by for an evening and we'll have dinner and you can stay the evening in our fancy bedroom.
While cool, it's hardly something I would see as a means of swaying any decision such a judge would have before them.
Now if you'd just gone with arguing the appearance of conflict of interest and left it at that you'd have something to go on. This was a bit far for reach.
Wouldn't the sleepover raise ex-parte concerns if it were to take place before the actual exit from chambers?
It's quite an unusual experience, but it's also cool, because it's not every day that you can be invited to the Lincoln's bedroom. As for me, we can emphasise a lot of things for ourselves from the style of decoration, so we need to read carefully. Because it is also a rather complicated issue nowadays, how to stage a bedroom so that it is fully beautiful and modern in terms of convenience. These are all questions that not everyone can ask, because not everyone thinks about them.