KBJ and Beyoncé

Justice Jackson's 2023 financial disclosure report revealed that she received four concert tickets from Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, valuing about $3,700. Patricia McCabe, the Supreme Court's Public Information Officer, released a statement: "Justice Jackson is 'Crazy in Love' with Beyoncé's music. Who isn't?" (For those outside the hive, Beyoncé and her now-husband, Shawn Carter, a/k/a Jay-Z, recorded a hit song in 2003 titled Crazy in Love.) I am fairly confident that McCabe's comment came directly from Justice Jackson. I can't fathom a restrained public affairs official would volunteer this line on her own.

Since the press was too star-struck to provide any scrutiny for this gift--to the left, to the left, as usual--I will.

First, how is it appropriate for the Supreme Court's press office to promote a Beyoncé song? Look at it this way: The celebrity gives free tickets to a Justice, and the Justice responds by highlighting how awesome Beyoncé's music is through the press office. Does no one see the problem? Can you fathom what would happen if Clarence Thomas issued a statement: "Who isn't in love with Harlan Crow's yacht"? Or what if Lee Greenwood gave Justice Alito concert tickets, and PIO issued this statement: "God bless the U.S.A. Who isn't Proud to be an American?" (Put that on a flag!) Again, there was a serious lapse in judgment here. But crickets from all the usual critics.

Second, it is true that millions of Americans love Beyoncé. And I'm sure there were many people inside the Beltway who would have loved free tickets to her concert at FedEx field. But Beyoncé does not hand out free tickets to her fans. How is it that KBJ scored four tickets? Did Jackson have some sort of pre-existing friendship with Beyoncé?  Did Jackson have some sort of pre-existing friendship with Oprah Winfrey, who gave her a $1,200 congratulatory floral arrangement in 2022? Why does this matter? When a real friend provides a gift, the understanding is that the gift is given due to some sort of genuine affection or prior relationship. But when a stranger, or a new friend provides a gift, the understanding is that the gift is to curry influence. When you become a Supreme Court Justice, you get lots of new "friends." There is no such thing as a free lunch. Assuming Jackson had no prior relationship with Beyoncé or Oprah, it is a fair guess that the floral arrangement and concert tickets were designed to have some influence on the Justice. And it worked--she promoted a Beyoncé song on Supreme Court stationary! What an advertisement.

Third, these sort of gifts also perform a signaling function. Rule like Justice Jackson, and you will be feted by celebrities. Rule like Justice Kavanaugh and you can buy your tickets on StubHub. And what if Justice Jackson, like her namesake Robert H. Jackson, drifts to the right over her tenure? Would she still be invited to attend elite concerts? You know the answer is no. Poor Justice Kennedy gave the left Casey, Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, Whoel Woman's Health, Obergefell, and so much more, but his "legacy" was tarnished by Trump v. Hawaii. And if I had to guess, these seats were in a private suite. The average ticket price was about $290, with the highest average ticket price was $651. What other celebrities were hanging out in that suite? The face-value for a ticket in these suites is misleading--the actual value is priceless. This gift, and other gifts like it, have the effect of keeping a Justice in place. The rules fully permit these gifts, so long as they are disclosed. But the impact of the gift is unmistakeable.

Now I do not think Jackson's jurisprudence would actually be affected by this gift, or others. I've been pleasantly surprised by some of her opinions so far. She has an independent streak that is somewhat unpredictable. But I can say the same about Justice Thomas's gifts. For all the outrage about Justice Thomas, no one doubts that he and Harlan Crow are genuine friends. They met nearly three decades ago, and have forged a close bond. Whatever generosity that Crow shares with Thomas is based on a kinship and connection that has been developed for years. I know that critics do not believe this, but it is true: Crow's trips for Thomas would in no way affect his jurisprudence. I've heard stories about how not even Justice Thomas's clerks can persuade him to change his mind. The man is a rock.

At bottom, Justice Jackson is praised for accepting largesse from the right kind of billionaire, while Justice Thomas is excoriated for accepting largesse from the wrong kind of billionaire.

Comments

[decline to state]

I’d prefer that Jackson not have accepted the free tickets and think it reflects poorly. And it reflects poorly on Oprah that she would think that sending a $1200 congratulations bouquet is a remotely normal human thing to do. And, should Beyonce ever have business before the court, it’ll look even worse though I’m sure nobody unruffled by Thomas would waggle so much as an eyebrow at such a pittance.

But I do indeed doubt that Crow and Thomas are truly friends, though I’m sure they’re friendly. One really likes a traveling lifestyle beyond his means. The other really likes making sure a person which whom he’s ideologically aligned stays on the court.

All that said, I also agree that it is unlikely that Thomas has changed an opinion. He’s not being paid to change his opinion, he’s being paid to make sure he sticks around to give them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let's say that I own a power boat and you own a rowboat.
I genuinely enjoy your company and want to go fishing with you.

We COULD go on your rowboat but I think rowing sucks.
Or we could go on my power boat. So *I* don't have to.

It's always awkward when one friend is of a different SES than the other, but it is common for the friends to go at the level of the higher SES -- not as a gift but because that person doesn't want to lower himself.

[David Nieporent]

I genuinely enjoy your company and want to go fishing with you.

The answer is no. No matter how many times you beg.

[Mr. Bumble]

David made a funny.

[Jerry B.]

He made a something.

[santamonica811]

Yes. A funny.

[David Nieporent]

And it reflects poorly on Oprah that she would think that sending a $1200 congratulations bouquet is a remotely normal human thing to do.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the underlying issue, but I find it sort of weird to count the cost to the sender of a floral arrangement as the value of the arrangement to the recipient. It's not like the recipient can do anything with that value. Like a car, its value depreciates the minute the person receives it — but unlike a car, it has no utility as it depreciates. The value of a bouquet is the sentiment, not the item.

[TheAmazingEmu]

I don't entirely agree since I think there's aesthetic value to a bouquet. However, I'd suggest that value is grossly inflated over a certain amount (although I've never gotten $1200 worth of flowers, so who knows).

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not just the tickets but the hassle of getting them.
And if this is a stadium, not all tickets are equal.

And as to Thomas, has it ever occurred to anyone that people may genuinely enjoy his company and nothing more?

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

The fixation about some cornball press release line is really, really dorky. Normal human beings aren't out there crying because someone made a pun with a song name. This is like very weird, antisocial, hermit behaviour.

It's even weirder when you get to the part write fanfiction about hypothetical press releases conservative Justices could put out that would be conservative versions of this order to get mad at the hypothetical reaction hypothetical liberals would hypothetically have to it. Like this is "please talk to your rabbi or your therapist" level pathologically weird. I think you should find someone in your life that you love and trust and ask them for help contextualizing how you express your feelings.

[CJColucci]

Beat me to it, and did a better job than I would have.

[Jacob Grimes]

"hypothetical reaction hypothetical liberals would hypothetically have to it."

I mean, we don't have to hypothesize. Liberals went ballistic over gifts to Thomas and Alito, even when they weren't even direct gifts like concert tickets.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

Right, about the gifts. Not about the fact that they made a pun when responding to the disclosure of the gifts. Please read the post you're replying to.

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t want to sound like a Rich Bastard, but $3,700 isn’t that much money now a days.

[Roger S]

There could be as much symbolism in a Beyonce ticket as a pine tree flag. Maybe she is signaling that she approves of the Trump prosecutions. If so, she should recuse herself from Trump cases.

[Vryedni]

"Could" is doing a lot of work there champ. Any evidence that activists are playing the Beyonce song to signal their approval of Trump prosecutions?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"For all the outrage about Justice Thomas, no one doubts that he and Harlan Crow are genuine friends. They met nearly three decades ago, and have forged a close bond."

Despite your absolute denial, a lot of people think they aren't genuine 'friends.' Thomas was confirmed in 1991, and met Crow in 1996. Their 'close bonds' includes Crow liking to give Thomas money and gifts that he shouldn't accept and doesn't report, and Thomas liking the fact that sugardaddy Crow gives him money and gifts that he couldn't otherwise afford on his own meager salary.

[mulched]

... didn't report when it wasn't reportable, and did report when it became reportable.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Did initially report until it got press. Didn't report when, according to him, he didn't understand the rules. Then did report when it was still reportable but came out he wasn't reporting, so he amended his disclosures...which indicates he now concedes it was reportable.

Maybe you'll understand the situation differently now that you know the facts.

[SRG2]

Blackman isn't quite as moronically disreputable on the subject as Calabresi, but that's not saying much. The amounts involved matter. A few thousand bucks is not the same as a few million.

[NvEric]

Attempted murder with one knife wound verses attempted murder with 10 knife wounds ?

[SRG2]

Obviously different. But you know that.

[Drewski]

Agreed. A bouquet isn't significant at all. The tickets aren't unseemly but I'd want Jackson to recuse if Swift or her organizations came before the Court. Those tickets were like a week's salary; not life-changing but not trivial. Millions of dollars in lavish gifts looks like buying influence (and is).

That said, perhaps all this will compel some congressional Republicans that the justices do need a binding ethics code. If we get one and it captures bouquets and tickets, I won't be bothered at all.

[Area Man]

Que the usual "But it's totes different because our people are pure and yours are evil" and "It doesn't matter because Blackman brought it up when no one else would" crowds. Truth is, these things don't have any real effect on the Justices. I'm willing to say that if Crow or Beyonce have cases come before the Court, the respective Justices should probably recuse (though, honestly, I wouldn't really care any more than I didn't care when Jackson only nominally recused from the Harvard case--does anyone really think she had no say in Harvard when it was jointly decided with UNC?). But otherwise, it's a big nothing burger. It's certainly no more problematic than RBG's antics, or Sotomayor telling young people that they need to devote themselves to fighting the Court's rulings as she cries herself to sleep.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you see anyone here saying “But it’s totes different because our people are pure and yours are evil”?
Or ad homineming because Blackman wrote it?

Or are you just strawmanning?

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ Do you see anyone here saying “But it’s totes different because our people are pure and yours are evil”?”

It’s a rhetorical paraphrase. You must have been confused because he didn’t use single quotes.

[Area Man]

You’re right. Except for the posts before and after mine doing exactly that, I’m just making it up. But, please, deflect more.

[Sarcastr0]

I see an argument they are actually different in degree, and above another argument that it is different in kind and Blackman should feel bad for saying otherwise.

So yeah strawmanning but along with some reading comprehension issues.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Beyonce tickets - the worst corruption progressives manifest.

Blackman must be a closet progressive.

[Daddyhill]

This is a piece of satire, yes? If not then you gotta be fucking kidding me. Comparing Justice Jackson's one-time concert tickets to Justices Thomas' and Alito's numerous junkets is way beyond apples and oranges. Alternate universes with different rules would be nearer the mark.

And Josh, parts of this really are incomprehensible. Not large parts, but definitely some parts. Perhaps you were enjoying your entheogen of choice when you wrote this. You're better than this.

In any case, why does this have to be so complicated? SCOTUS justices have been appointed to positions of great power for the rest of their lives (most working stiffs don't get that kind of job security but also have families to feed). The justices do bring extensive study and experience of the law, and are expected to deliberate and rule according to the best interests of the law. Usually they do I believe. Again considering the lifetime job security justices receive, would it ruin their lives to have a simple "no gifts whatsoever" rule, or "no gifts worth over $500.00"? I know there is much disagreement as to the definition of emoluments, but come on. If the justices believe they deserve to have larger salaries so they can live in a more or less prosperous style, then let's get congress to vote them larger salaries. I would support a doubling or even tripling, provided they would also adopt and observe some kind of stringent "no gifts" rule.

[SRG2]

You’re better than this.

Was.

[ah....Clem]

Blackman and Calabresi are canonical examples of Poe's Law.

If they weren't filing amicus curiae briefs in the Mar a Largo case I could be persuaded that they're just punking everyone.

[Botaglove]

Blackman apparently thinks he is a wit.

[not guilty]

Shorter Blackman:

Tu quoque now!
Tu quoque tomorrow!!
Tu quoque FO'EVAH!!!

[loki13]

... well played. No notes.

[Botaglove]

"For all the outrage about Justice Thomas, no one doubts that he and Harlan Crow are genuine friends."

Where by "no one" Blackman means his close friends and everybody else who agrees with him.

[bernard11]

For all the outrage about Justice Thomas, no one doubts that he and Harlan Crow are genuine friends

Where the fuck did that come from? How does Blackman know what anyone, outside his ass-kissing circles, thinks about the Crow-Thomas relationship?

What a tool Josh is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who is the bigger tool, Josh Blackman or the hopeless dumbasses who pay to attend his classes at South Texas College of Law Houston?

[Pacific]

This is the preview to Blackman’s Trump Immunity argument before Judge Cannin. The $1,000,000 law professor.

[ReaderY]

There’s actually considerably more beef here than the average beef that comes out from out from between Professor Blackman’s notoriously fluffy buns. It’s true. Justice Jackson shouldn’t have taken the tickets. I won’t bother trying to defend it or say the value being considerably less than for certain more senior Justices is somehow a justification for it. Yes, Justice Jackson too puts her dainty little paws in the trough and scoops up and guzzles some of that swill. And none of them should.

I’m not sure if announcing it makes it worse. Perhaps it’s better to have ones press agent acknowledge it, however ineptly it may have been put, than to not even mention it on ones financial disclosure forms.

[santamonica811]

It's a million times better to announce it. I'm with you--I don't think she should have accepted the gift. And not only will she recuse herself if this part happens to come up before the Sup. Ct in the future; she should recuse if a case comes up that directly implicates the rights of recording artists, IMO.

But I want Justices to report *everything.* (Well, maybe over $50, to avoid the pain of reporting lunches or casual dinners a friend buys for you.). If you report an expense, then at least I and others can evaluate and be sanguine or outraged at the particulars. But intentionally (or incompetently) failing to disclose stinks to high heaven . . . it's like some of these people go out of their way to seem as unethical and sleazy to the general public as possible.

When I talk to my lifelong conservative friends; they are universally bothered by Thomas (for example) accepting lavish gifts. The fact that Josh seems to really *know* that, in fact, we really think/feel the opposite, and are not really bothered . . . well, that's an indictment of Josh's bubble and about how isolated he is from ethical and honorable people who inhabit both sides of the aisle.

[Jonathansingletary]

Let’s make something clear: I never—and I mean NEVER—want to read the phrase “Blackman’s notoriously fluffy buns” again. Ever. Never ever. In fact, this could just be a blanket rule for all VC bloggers.

[ReaderY]

Wendy’s original “Where’s the beef” ad was entitled “Fluffy Bun.” The meaning is (in that respect) a perfectly respectable if not exactly complimentary witticism about lots of talk but little substance. (The meaning Mondale gave the slogan when he said it about Gary Hart.) The phrase “fluffy bun” comes right from this source. An absolutely impeccably respectable etymology for the choice of phrase.

The possibility there might be a further entendre? Me? Tell puns with triple entendres? Really? How could you think this of me?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1FZNYXKHwNw

[Kazinski]

I think Josh is expressing these thoughts on behalf of Kavanaugh, Brett has to be bitter about paying retail for Taylor Swift tickets, especially since he probably isn't a Swifty.

[LibertyLancer]

Justice Jackson scored free tickets to a Beyoncé concert, and the Supreme Court's press office basically turned into a damn fangirl, gushing over Queen Bey like a teenage girl at a boy band concert!

Now, imagine if Justice Clarence Thomas pulled a similar stunt, professing his love for Harlan Crow's yacht. The left would lose their damn minds faster than you can say "impeachment"! But when it's Justice Jackson and Beyoncé, the press suddenly turns a blind eye, more star-struck than a tween at a Justin Bieber concert! Where's the scrutiny, folks? Where's the damn outrage?

You see, my friends, these gifts are more than just a friendly gesture. They're a subtle form of influence, a way to curry favor with a Supreme Court justice. It's like offering a politician a campaign donation and expecting nothing in return. Justice Jackson, a brilliant legal mind, surely knows the game being played here.

And let's talk about the signaling here. Justice Jackson, by accepting these tickets, is sending a message: "Support me, and you'll be rewarded with perks and access to the celebrity elite." It's like a damn VIP pass to the liberal club, where perks and influence flow freely. But, as Blackman (rightfully) points out, this dynamic could change if Justice Jackson suddenly drifted to the right. Those perks and celebrity connections might dry up faster than a puddle in the desert!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you are a student at South Texas College of Law Houston, you fucked up. You should try to transfer to a legitimate law school. If you can’t find one that will take you, you should quit law school and get a job.

You’re welcome. Good luck.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't have a problem with Justice Jackson accepting the tix to the Beyonce concert. I bet she went with her girls. Why not?

Anyone who thinks her jurisprudence will be affected is wrong. And they are wrong about Justice Thomas, too.

[Jonathansingletary]

Calabresi and Blackman posts are just part of a reason.com clickbait strategy, right? I mean, it seems to work, so we’re the suckers, but still. I say this mostly because their posts are so cartoonishly hysterical, rushed, often incoherent (in contrast to Volokh, Somin, Adler, etc) and often rack up a crazy number of comments for a VC post. They have all the hallmarks of posts meant to drive traffic.

[huskerdru]

Prof. Blackman makes some legitimate substantive points here. I agree in general that respectfully declining the gifts would have been the best decision. However, he commits several errors in logic or fact:

1) “Real” friends. J Thomas had never met Crow until he had sat on the bench for five years. This does nothing to undermine the contention that Crow was no more a “real” friend to Thomas than Beyonce is to J Jackson. It’s reasonable to suppose that neither justice would ever have associated with the rich person absent appointment to SCOTUS. Perhaps the only real criticism sustainable here is that KBJ should have associated with Beyoncé for a few years before accepting such a gift. Also, the whole focus on “friends” is a bit of a red herring. A benefactor’s status as a “real friend” impacts the hospitality exception much more than the acceptance of gifts in general.

2) False analogy—as others have noted, there is an ocean separating a $3700 gift and several worth tens or hundreds of thousands. The hypothetical Lee Greenwood analogy holds up, but positing Crow as a “celebrity” is risible. He is known to the public in general for his relationship and generosity to Thomas, not as a celebrity is his own right. Prof. Blackman’s criteria for “real” friendship would render that between Crow and Thomas just as suspect, the only difference being the length of the relationship, while both came about following appointment to the Court.

3) There is also a blatant false equivalence in comparing the dollar value of KBJ’s gifts to those received by Thomas. They are worlds apart. At least tens of thousands of dollars apart.

4) Factual errors. Per the cited source, the highest ticket price for Beyoncé’s tour was $691, not $651, though that is obviously minor. It does, however, suggest sloppiness in reviewing his source material. Thing is, 4x$691 obviously would not total $3700. I’m interested to know how the tickets were valued, if each exceeded the ostensible “highest” ticket price for the tour. Whatever the case, I agree that it was poor judgment to accept the tickets.

I think the biggest reason for the lack of scrutiny vs Thomas’s gifts is the huge disparity in value (and, so far, quantity). That disparity is not a simple difference in degree, but an enormous difference in kind. Such an enormous difference that it renders this critique more petty than substantive. I also suspect Prof. Blackman knows that accounts for the scrutiny disparity, but couldn’t pass up an opportunity to stick it to The Libs.

[loki13]

So I am going to mention this. The public disclosures are available for all of the Justices. They are gathered at SCOTUSBLOG (among other places). Go on and look. You'll see the Justice Jackson had three "gifts" in 2023. The tickets, and two pieces of artwork for her chambers.

But you'll also see that she (like Gorsuch and Barnett recently, and, yes, Sotomayor) just got a big book payday. 900k. Which is perfectly allowable. But maybe should be a little more scrutinized (why doesn't JB scrutinize this ... well, like I said, Gorsuch and Barnett).

I would recommend looking at Thomas's 2022 disclosure. Specifically Section 8. Basically, it says - hey, we construed the rules differently, so maybe things before 2022 weren't disclosed. Oops. Not gonna disclose them.

I looked at a lot of the disclosures of different Justices. Weirdly, Justice Jackson seemed scrupulous about any and all possible gifts. I didn't see the same disclosures by any other Justices of the ones I reviewed.

Now, maybe Jackson is the only Justice that receives anything, ever. Or maybe she is the only one that is scrupulous about disclosing them.

I have a feeling I know which one is correct.

(And just so you know it's not a partisan thing, I reviewed Kagan and Sotomayor for 2021-23, and they didn't disclose any gifts either.)

[neurodoc]

Does any VCer's opinions re judicial ethics merit less respect than those of Professor Blackman? None in my view, since he is so accepting of any thing Thomas and Alito and their respective wifes heinous do or say,

[arpiniant1]

Does Beyonce have business before the court?
Does she influence the court?
Compare this to rank bribery of Thomas
Josh a putz once again