The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Do Judges Also "Berate" The Press?
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri. Justices Kavanaugh and Kagan--who both worked in the White House--stated that it was fairly common for government officials to "berate" the press.
Justice Kavanaugh observed that "experienced government press people throughout the federal government . . .. regularly call up the media and berate them." Later, Justice Kavanuagh asked if "traditional, everyday communications would suddenly be deemed problematic"? Justice Kagan added that "like Justice Kavanaugh, I've had some experience encouraging press to suppress their own speech." Whereas Kavanaugh referred to "government press people," Kagan spoke in the first person about her own calls to the press. Kagan explained that "this happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government." And she offered what such a phone call would sound like:
"You just wrote about editorial. Here are the five reasons you shouldn't write another one. You just wrote a story that's filled with factual errors. Here are the 10 reasons why you shouldn't do that again."
I can imagine being on the receiving end of such a phone phone call from Kagan or Kavanaugh. Indeed, some years ago, I received just such a call. I tweeted about an opinion from a federal circuit judge. The next day, I received an email from the judge asking me to call chambers. I promptly did so. At that point, the circuit judge proceeded to berate me for what the judge perceived to be an inaccurate tweet about the opinion. I tried to explain tweets are very short messages, that can't always capture all the nuances of a complex opinion. My explanation did not suffice. I was told that I should know better, and should take care to accurately characterize the opinion. The phone call went on for some time.
This experience was the most extreme judicial berating I've received, but it is not isolated. Another time I attended a conference and bumped into a circuit judge. I had recently severely criticized a decision from the judge's court. I introduced myself, and the judge replied, with a look of scorn, "I know who you are." No further words were exchanged.
Sometimes, judges use intermediaries. In one instance, a judge complained to my former boss, Judge Boggs, about a blog post I wrote. Judge Boggs relayed the message to me, and I shrugged. Another judge complained to one of my co-authors about something I wrote; I shrugged. In other instances, I've received contact from a judge's former clerks who defended their boss against something I wrote. More shrugging.
I've had other run-ins with judges who gently criticized my writings, or at most, suggested that I got something wrong. Most of the time it is done with some humor and humility, but on occasion, I can tell I've peeved the judge. These experience reinforce a point I've made in recent posts: judges profoundly care what the public thinks about them, and when they feel treated unfairly, they speak out.
I don't think inferior judges are unique. Supreme Court Justices likewise berate the press. In recent memory, perhaps the most visible such incident was when Justice Scalia wrote a letter to the editor of the National Law Journal, calling an article by Tony Mauro "mauronic." And in the Dick Cheney duckhunt case, Justice Scalia charged that many press outlets did "not even have the facts right" and gave "largely inaccurate and uninformed opinions." Scalia, perhaps to his credit, was open with his criticism. Other Justices make these remarks in private.
I am reliably informed that the Justices will often call members of the Supreme Court press corps into chambers for a discussion about their reporting. Of course, the very people who are best equipped to talk about these beratings are unable to do so. But if I had to guess, while Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh were asking their questions during Murthy, the fourth estate in the press box was nodding along.
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 wrote a law review article fresh out of law school, and I harshly criticized certain opinions. I ran into one of the secretaries who worked for the state Supreme Court. She told me that I should watch what I write and that my article had seriously pissed off some judges and that they were open about it. I later found out that one actually called my employer. Disgusting in a free society. Absolutely disgusting. Judges have NO business acting this way. None. They should realize that criticism comes with the territory and that responses to criticism should come in the form of law review articles or other public writings. If a judge doesn't like press coverage about an opinion, then write an op-ed. It would be a benefit to the public.
Judges actually should welcome criticism. Keeps them sharp and on their game. Lord knows that there are plenty of bad opinions/decisions out there.
Wait. We are supposed to believe that a secretary (not a law clerk or staff attorney) for a state supreme court justice ran into you, connected your name to a law review article you wrote right out of law school when nobody knew who you were, and she told you that multiple judges were pissed about it and relayed that to her in such a way that she felt compelled to give you a mild threat? Really?
This is one of the least plausible things that I have ever heard.
Well, if your job fresh out of law school is in the judicial branch, then maybe not so implausible.
“in the judicial branch”
Hmmm, another one of these intentionally ambiguous statements— sort of like refusing to say you are/were a lawyer in favor of saying you had “BigLaw training”
“I later found out that one actually called my employer. Disgusting in a free society”
Like LTG I have a lot of trouble believing this story given your past comments here but I will say this:
Are you sure it wasn’t David Bernstein?? Because he threatened to call my boss in this very space!!
His comments could generally be wise and true and I still wouldn’t ever believe this story. It’s a “then everyone clapped” story, except, “then the highest levels of the judiciary and their staff all got pissed at me.”
A “sir” story, if you will
Don't really care if you believe it or not. I'd cite the law review article, but don't really want to give away anonymity.
Lol I have no doubt you wrote one. I just highly doubt any one fucking cared let alone multiple judges and justices.
Regarding press jawboning--we don't regulate the press. We do regulate other entities, and if you think regulators don't have a heavy hand, then I have a bridge to sell you, and if Kavanaugh doesn't realize that, then he's not as smart as advertised.
Okay, but that is avoiding the issue entirely. That you , Mr Powerful Government Person,do not INTEND crushing force does not in any way mean that the one receiving your call doesn't pruidently take it that way. I was watching that hateful stupid Biden attacking Trump for calling soldiers some names, incl beloved Beau.And it was all a lie. A complete lie.imagine if he had some power as in Hunter telling you the BIg Guy is not happy.
C'mon,this is the real world.
It's pretty funny that the people who complain about TDS can't help but bring up Hunter Biden in any conversation about any topic, no matter how tenuous the thread.
To the jawboning at hand: you'd think that the people who would be concerned about this would be the companies in question (who instead assert they didn't feel pressured) rather than some random states. Obviously it's theoretically possible for the government to pressure companies on speech in ways where they feel like they have to do it, but there's nothing in the record on these cases that would lead you to conclude these are examples of that sort of pressure.
So you were good with the campaign against the Hunter Biden laptop reporting?
I cannot imagine anyone making my first point more effectively for me. Thanks!
Rloquitur, showing all of the intelligence that prompted him to harshly criticize sitting judges right after graduating law school.
Legal error is legal error, and it should be ruthlessly criticized. When courts make mistakes, real people suffer. The idea of lese-majeste has no place in a free society.
Second, the laptop is (and was) genuine. There was a campaign to suppress the reporting about it. That's not remotely debatable. You shill for these moral degenerates. Why?
Hunter Biden escaped paying a boatload of taxes--how? Because the statute ran. You good with connected people skating like that? F off fascist fan boy.
1) There is a difference between saying that some decisions are wrong and "harshly criticizing" them (especially when one has no credentials to say so). There are some judges that I think are terrible judges. I can tell war stories. But I am prudent enough not to publicly identify those judges specifically as long as I might have to appear before them.
2) "The laptop" — that is, the device in the FBI's possession — may be genuine. That does not mean that all the data on the device is, and it certainly did not mean that the article published in the New York Post, which had never seen that laptop, was accurate.
3) There was no campaign to suppress the reporting about it. There was an open letter correctly noting how fishy the origin story of the laptop was.
4) Hunter Biden is a failson with (to be charitable) terrible judgment, and (to be less charitable) loose morals. But Hunter Biden is a private citizen. I don't care what happens to Hunter Biden one way or the other. I am not obsessed with Hunter Biden. (Also, while I believe he escaped criminal prosecution on some of the unpaid taxes, he has not escaped paying any of those taxes. And he's only being prosecuted at all because he's connected; the government almost never goes after random people criminally merely for failing to pay taxes.)
5) Fascist does not mean whatever you seem to think it means.
Some of the taxes he didn't pay, as the statute had past.
“Statue had past”
Curious formulation
Ah, "credentials"---hmmmm. That's the beauty of the legal process. The materials are all there, and the answer is accessible to all.
As for the laptop, come on man. You are a shill. And you're right, Hunter is a private citizen--getting hooked up because he's a Biden. And Joe did intercede on his company's behalf with the Ukrainian government. But you're good with that. OK, man.
Your first statement makes it pretty clear you don't understand law, which is not determinate like engineering. There are better and worse decisions, and some may be clearly wrong, but there is almost never one "the answer." Also, even in determinate fields, a widely respected expert can "harshly criticize" a paper or study in a way that some snot-nosed recent graduate cannot.
The "beauty of the legal process," though, is that evidence is what counts. And the evidence with respect to the laptop is what it is, and cannot be refuted by saying "come on."
Speaking of evidence, Joe did not, of course, intercede on his son's company's behalf.
Well in his defense, his story does not really demonstrate a lack of intelligence on his part because it almost certainly didn’t happen.
Imagine believing that your law review article as a recent grad was such a bombshell that a secretary knew about it and knew your name.
Good point.
If you work in the court system, then yes, and if you interviewed with one of the judges and she was his secretary, then . . . .
So you clerked for a state supreme court, and the other justices and other judges outside the court not only knew who you were, they cared enough to read a whole law review article you wrote in or soon after law school, and also cared enough about its content to tell other people they were pissed about it?
Yeah okay. I suppose I can’t speak to what a state supreme court clerkship fully entails, but I’ve worked in state court and know people at various levels of my state’s judiciary and this just doesn’t seem plausible at all. At most A justice read and cared. The idea of multiple justices and judges caring is a huge stretch.
Yeah; the bigger implausibility is not that the secretary knew his name, but that a bunch of judges cared about a law review article at all. "Oh, no. An article by a nobody that nobody will read harshly criticized one of my opinions! My blood is boiling!"
Yeah to the extent they ever engage with them or use them it’s because there is:
1. A niche/unique issue that their own state hasn’t developed as much clear law on;
2. There is an emerging issue, like the implications of a new technology;
3. A widely recognized expert in the field writing is writing about the issue they’re interested in (or if not a widely recognized expert, at least someone who just put in a lot of work case crunching to show trends/splits)
Orin Kerr articles are a good example of scholarship a judge might care about. But they wouldn’t care that much compared to whatever else the lawyers presented and might only briefly discuss it if at all.
They definitely don’t read or care about some law student talking shit in his note.
"showing all of the intelligence that prompted him to harshly criticize sitting judges right after graduating law school."
That's nothing. There are people, so I've heard, that harshly criticize even Supreme Court justices, without ever even going to law school.
You miss the point. I'm not saying that sitting judges are so much smarter than lawyers that the latter aren't qualified to criticize them. I'm saying that anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that lawyers should not attack sitting judges, who they may one day have to persuade to rule in their clients' favor.
Basic lesson for Jackson - The purpose of 1A is to hamstring the government and prevent the censorship of speech.
The purpose of 1A is not to prevent the hamstringing of the government to censor speech - not to facilitate the censorship of speech.
It's quite generous of you to give Justice Jackson a free lesson. I'm not sure why you decide to do it in a comment section for a post that doesn't mention Justice Jackson or anything she said or wrote.
It is not really surprising that the government tries to "berate" the press into covering what they want to have covered, or a certain way. Anyone who has watched the media once again devolve into a Trump-centered machine, while running polls that show that their repeated coverage of Biden's age and lack of coverage of any of his accomplishments has had the predictable result of goosing voters' concerns about his age and fueling their ignorance of his achievements, will understand that.
Also not surprising that Josh has been repeatedly "berated" for his moronic opinions.
"fueling their ignorance of [Biden's] achievements"
lol, lmao
I suppose you're attempting to demonstrate the point.
Biden has achievements? Who knew
The inflation act
open border policy
Embolden Russian
The restart of Iranian appeasement
Attempts to constrain Israel in finishing off Hamas
were any accomplishments omitted from the list?
Biden reminds me of the civil war's victors, in that he and they beat the bigots when it counted.
Except in the minds of Volokh Conspiracy-class clingers, of course. In their view, Trump won and the Confederacy is unfairly vilified.
Historic investments in American infrastructure, superconductor capacity, and green technology.
Assembling an alliance of powers to resist Russia's invasion of Ukraine (after Trump paved the way).
Successfully navigated us out of the COVID economic slump, where our economy is stronger and better-positioned than Europe and China, in terms of inflation, employment, and growth.
What you motherfuckers would prefer to ignore is that half the shit we're going through is Trump's fault. Trump pulled out of the Iran deal and set them on course to restarting weapon development and causing issues through regional proxies. Trump laid the groundwork for the war in Gaza by sidelining the Palestinian problem while facilitating the Abraham Accords. Trump made a deal with the Taliban that necessitated a catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan and collapse of that government. Trump's tax cuts and profligate spending during the good economic years prior to COVID put our budget in a worse place than it would have been had he pursued sound fiscal policies during that period of time.
Biden came in to clean up Trump's mess, and he has done remarkably well.
$8 billion for EV charging network even!
Years later, 1 EV station.
Historic Green Energy achievement!
What other talking points have you got on your MAGA memo?
ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) Boards often provide the best examples. In 2024 Virginia, an ABC Agent sent a letter [!!] to a licensee informing him that his business would be subject to strict scrutiny if he continued to serve Black patrons after 10 PM (and, by the way, there is no regulation which prohibits sales of alcohol to Black patrons after 10 PM... but such sales _do_ frighten some White people strolling nearby sidewalks). The licensee did not comply and -- what do you know -- the ABC agent found a liquor bottle having an ABC-applied inventory sticker which was not fully adhered (one corner was unglued) and terminated the license stating (in writing) that each licensee has the responsibility to use transparent tape or a similar method to assure that all ABC-applied stickers are fully adhered.
I also remember a time when a former President was accused of crimes in an effort to remove him from the campaign trail... but that's a different story. 🙂
Source for that story about Virginia ABC agent letter in 2024 saying something about "Black" patrons? (Hopefully with the letter.)
OK. Not what if the judge who "berates" you is one you appear before as a lawyer? (This does not apply to professors or lawyers who are remote from the judge.) Do you think that the "berating" has some kind of coercive effect? What happens next time you are before that judge -- might the "berating" not play into how he treats your case?
That's the problem with this case. It's easy, in theory, to say there's a difference between persuasion and coercion. In practice, however, coercion often takes subtle forms. Most people are smart enough not to say "Do what I tell you or the axe falls."
And when someone has power over you (a judge in a case, or as others have pointed out, a regulator in a regulated industry), then the implied coercion is all the stronger.
Breaking news: water is wet.
To be fair, I think this is a pretty understandable reaction independent of any critical tweets.
It is perfectly reasonable for a government official to berate a member of the fourth estate for what they said, and even for whstthey might say.
It's entirely a different matter for an official to te;l a company what I may say on their platform.
Hiw could these two justices be so obtuse?
Huh? You think the first amendment protects companies more than it does the press? That seems, at a minimum, pretty atextual. Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?
That's not what he said. The issue is when government communication crosses the line from persuasion to coercion. Where a regulator talks to someone in a regulated industry, it is easier to cross that line then when a politician speaks to the press. In the former situation, the speaker has much more power to hurt the recipient than the latter.
Literally what he said is that it's fine to berate the press but not okay to tell companies what to do. Most normal people would think that "berate" is more severe than "tell" which is why I asked for an explanation.
Your explanation, of course, appears nowhere in jjsaz's post. But let's engage with it anyway. Are the social media platforms a "regulated industry?" And to the extent they are, are they regulated by the government entities that were jawboning in these cases? It's a bit funny that the same people pushing for more government regulation of these platforms are then complaining that the government has too much influence over them. Why don't we just all agree that the platforms can choose what content to include, regardless of whether or not the government approves?
It could be worse than a tongue lashing. Massachusetts Judge Ernest Murphy sued over unfavorable coverage in the Boston Herald and won over $2 million plus interest. He also claimed to have been so traumatized that he needed to retire on disability. The state denied that request.
The important point to derive from this post seems to be that nobody likes Josh Blackman.
Except, of course, Josh Blackman, who thinks quite highly of Josh Blackman.
Argumentum ad hominem est fallacia stultorum.
Fancy-pants Latin, misapplied.
The assertions that Blackman was roundly disliked came from Blackman.
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
An argument ad hominem has to be an argument, in which case it is, indeed, a fallacy. But “Josh Blackman is a jerk” is not an argument — pro tip, there is no explicit or implied “therefore” — it is a simple and correct statement of fact. Unless the speaker is saying, in effect, what Josh Blackman is saying is wrong because he’s a jerk, there is no argument ad hominem, mere personal abuse, which may be, and in this case is, perfectly warranted.
Relatedly, “I’m not going to engage in the substance of whatever Blackman says because he’s a jerk” is also not an argument ad hominem, merely a perfectly good reason not to waste time responding to something Blackman says.
The Rev is a great guy--if you don't believe it, just ask him.
I don't see myself as so great . . . although I look pretty good when compared not with Americans in general but instead with this blog's clingers.
I feel like mischarterizing a Supreme Court justice's opinion in my Substack, just so I can have the thrill of a phone call from a Supreme Court Justice. I'll have to remember to include my phone number at the end of the piece. Which justice is touchiest about that sort of thing?
Alito.
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
-- Raylan Givens.
For some reason this quote just popped into my head, spontaneously, after reading a post about all the people who criticized Prof. Blackman's writings.
Or you could run into you and fulfill your douchebag quota for a week.
I think it's nice that Josh Blackman has a few defenders at this blog. Nobody should have to go through the world alone, rejected, mocked, disliked, and ridiculed by everyone else.
What's interesting about the dynamic is that none of Josh's defenders likely have any real interest in his writing or any particular view of how good it is. They're just closing ranks with someone they view as a fellow traveler, the same way they do with Trump. "They're coming for our guy! Let's get 'em!"
There's the IKYABWAI? wit that MAGA are famous for.
These judges sound like a bunch of thin skinned babies.
You figure it's the judges who come off badly in this post?
The Volokh Conspirators and their fans deserve each other.
Unless the judges are intimating that they call up the janitor working in the building to bitch about the guy writing editorials when they KNOW they are not the same person, the comparisons aren't even in the same zip code, let alone the same ballpark.