Justice Kavanaugh "Definitely Pay[s] Attention" To the Press

I am still incredulous that Justice Barrett does not read coverage about herself.

Justice Kavanaugh spoke at the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference. He was interviewed by Judge Sarah Pitlyk, who was his former law clerk. (Kavanaugh's clerk tree continues to grow, with President Trump's recent nominations to the Third and Sixth Circuits.)

I have yet to find a video of the event, but there are several press accounts. Politico offers this insight:

Kavanaugh also made clear he closely follows press coverage, podcasts and social media posts about the Supreme Court, what he described as "an ocean of criticism and critiques out there."

"I'm aware of it. I definitely pay attention to it. I think you have to. We're public officials who serve the American people. It's not an academic exercise," said Kavanaugh, who worked as a White House lawyer for President George W. Bush. "It's important for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and the Supreme Court to know how the opinions are being conveyed and received and understood by the American people."

Oh I bet he does. Indeed, in 2021, the Supreme Court's Public Information Office "clipped approximately 10,000 news articles related to the court and the justices, roughly half of them tweets." The Justices have to go out of their way to not see this content.

I also appreciate that Justice Kavanaugh responded directly to Justice Kagan's missives at the Ninth Circuit Conference about the lack of a written opinion for emergency docket orders.

Kavanaugh . . . said there can be a "danger" in writing those opinions. He said that if the court has to weigh a party's likelihood of success on the merits at an earlier stage in litigation, that's not the same as reviewing their actual success on the merits if the court takes up the case.

"So there could be a risk in writing the opinion, of lock-in effect, of making a snap judgment and putting it in writing, in a written opinion that's not going to reflect the final view," Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh is right. More and more, it seems that Justice Kavanaugh is speaking out in defense of what the majority is doing--his opinions in Labrador v. Poe and CASA were extremely important. He has become the explainer in chief! Chief Justice Roberts is content in issuing stern end-of-year messages and trying to cheer up Judge Boasberg at Judicial Conference meetings.

By contrast, in 2022, Justice Barrett said she does not read press coverage about herself.

Let's say I have not ever talked to my clerks about whether they read SCOTUS blog. I would be surprised if most of the law clerks in the building did not. I have a policy of not reading. I read news. I'm not an uninformed person, but I have a policy of trying not to read any coverage that addresses me. I mean, I kind of generally want to know about the court. But I do try not to read like whether they're positive or negative, I think it's not a very good idea to read and consume media, that's about me, because, you know, I think there are personal and institutional reasons for that, you know, the institutional reason is that judges have life tenure, so that they can be insulated from fear of public opinion. And so to read criticisms of the court, I think, undermines that. So you know, you shouldn't be playing to anyone in the public or any kind of constituency, you know, being happy if you make one segment of the public happy, or, you know, reluctant to anger another. . .  .

And then on a personal level, you know, it's just not good to have any of that in your head. Certainly not if it's critical and mean. But even if it's high praise, I mean, like, why should you be reading a steady diet? Or my case, it wouldn't really be a steady diet. But why should you be consuming, you know, flattering, you know, articles about yourself, because on a personal level, I mean, the day that I think I am, you know, better than the next person in the grocery store, checkout line, and you know, is a bad day. So, I would say that I really tried to bracket and put aside, you know, anything, you know, to the extent that I can avoid reading, and if it addresses me in particular.

I was incredulous about this statement at the time, and I remain incredulous. Indeed, as Justice Barrett prepares a media blitz for her forthcoming book, I have to imagine she will follow press coverage about herself carefully. Justice Barrett's planned event with Bari Weiss at Lincoln Center seems to have sold out almost immediately.

I am still fond of Justice Scalia's 2013 remarks about his press diet to New York Magazine:

What's your media diet? Where do you get your news?
Well, we get newspapers in the morning.

"We" meaning the justices?
No! Maureen and I.

Oh, you and your wife …
I usually skim them. We just get The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times. We used to get the Washington Post, but it just … went too far for me. I couldn't handle it anymore.

What tipped you over the edge?
It was the treatment of almost any conservative issue. It was slanted and often nasty. And, you know, why should I get upset every morning? I don't think I'm the only one. I think they lost subscriptions partly because they became so shrilly, shrilly liberal.

So no New York Times, either?
No New York Times, no Post.

And do you look at anything online?
I get most of my news, probably, driving back and forth to work, on the radio.

Not NPR?
Sometimes NPR. But not usually.

Reading the press is not necessarily a bad thing. As Mike Davis observed "Sometimes feeling the heat helps people see the light."

But the president's supporters were delighted by her criticism of Justice Jackson, with some crowing that their earlier attacks on Justice Barrett had succeeded.

"Sometimes feeling the heat helps people see the light," Mike Davis, a right-wing legal activist with close ties to…

— ???????? Mike Davis ???????? (@mrddmia) July 7, 2025