The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
NYT To SCOTUS: "I just want them to know we're watching them."
We learn fascinating insights about how the newspaper of record covers the "holy of holies of American law."
I have long been a subscriber to the New York Times. I read the online version daily, and closely follow its reporting about the Supreme Court. Traditionally, the Times had a single Supreme Court reporter: Anthony Lewis, Linda Greenhouse, and most recently Adam Liptak. These reporters would cover all facets of the Supreme Court. They would preview high-profile cases, write about oral argument, analyze decisions, and offer updates whenever the Justices did something noteworthy. But in recent years, I've noticed a shift in how the media covers the Supreme Court. New reporters were hired who focused not on the work of the Court, but on the Justices themselves. There were any stories about Justice Alito's flags and Justice Thomas's travels. And Jodi Kantor published inside information about the Court's deliberations.
The Times Insider interviews the SCOTUS quartet--Jodi Kantor, Adam Liptak, Ann Marimow, and Abbie VanSickle--to explain why the Times has expanded its coverage.
Adam Liptak, who practiced law for 14 years, has been the dominant and authoritative voice on the beat since he began covering the court in 2008. He has just taken on a new role, chief legal affairs correspondent, and will soon start writing a weekly newsletter, The Docket, about the most pressing legal questions of the day.
Nearly four years ago, Jodi Kantor, an investigative reporter with a track record of telling difficult stories, began taking readers inside the institution and delivering telling portraits of how the justices exercise their power, often working with Adam. In 2023, The Times added an investigative reporter and lawyer, Abbie VanSickle, to the team. Last summer Ann E. Marimow, who previously covered the court at The Washington Post, took over Adam's role writing about major cases.
The first, and most important note, is that Adam Liptak is stepping down from his regular coverage of the Court. His latest Sidebar column closes with this note:
The first installment of the Sidebar column appeared 19 years ago, in January 2007. It was about housing discrimination. Since then, I've written hundreds more. This one is the last.
But I have more to say, and I'll be saying it in The Docket, a new weekly newsletter on the law. It will retain a lot of this column's DNA, but, if I do it right, it will be more ambitious, varied and informal. I hope you'll join me there.
I promptly signed up for the newsletter, but will miss Adam's regular coverage. Even where I disagree with Liptaks coverage from time-to-time (including about myself), I still found him to be a fair, careful, and insightful journalist. Adam leaves large shoes to fill.
Second, Jodi Kantor state with some clarity the effect, if not purpose of the expanded coverage. She was asked if "greater media scrutiny affected on the court, the justices or their performance." Kantor replied, "I just want them to know we're watching them." I firmly believe that Justices respond to media scrutiny. I think this scrutiny works, so long as it is applied to both sides. I offered this remark about Kantor's reporting in November:
In the past, I've been critical that she has focused only on the Court's conservatives. To her credit, Kantor has done a deep dive on the Court's three progressives.
Indeed, my post was cited in the interview.
Americans across the ideological spectrum want to know more about the court. I noticed that a prominent conservative legal analyst wrote online how much he learned from your piece on the liberal justices, for instance.
KANTOR: That story does get to the heart of this work — who are the nine human beings who inhabit these roles, and how do they approach their work? How do lifetime appointments and the extreme way people tend to treat the justices — obsequiousness, attack — affect them? What is this institution — the holy of holies of American law — actually like inside, and how does power flow there? How partisan are the justices, and how do they interact with one another? Those are the kinds of questions I'm interested in discussing. (And if anyone with knowledge wants to help, you can reach me securely through nytimes.com/tips.)
This was the second time in 24 hours that the Times felt compelled to refer to me as a conservative. More on that later.
Speaking of balance, I'd like to know how Justice Jackson reacted to all of the anti-ICE statements during the Grammy's. Remember how closely Justice Alito was scrutinized after the 2010 State of the Union address? An MSNBC reporter talked to Judge Emil Bove after the President's rally in the Poconos. Certainly someone checked in with KBJ on this point, right?
Third, Kantor refused to say even a word about her sourcing:
How do you get people inside an institution as heavily cloaked as the court to share important but confidential information?
KANTOR: We can't talk about our sources, full stop. Even an innocuous comment from us could be mistaken for a clue, and we have pledged to protect their privacy.
There is some irony that someone leaked information about the Chief Justice's NDA in violation of the NDA. I'll write about that story later.
Still, Kantor acknowledges that much of her reporting can be found in the actual opinions, a point I've made many times before:
But the behind-the-scenes stories we've been able to tell often have public hints and markers. I recently wrote about the split in strategy among the liberal justices, based on conversations with people who know and understand them. But the differences in approach between Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the strains between Justice Jackson and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, are right in the text of opinions. This world is very decorous; we're not talking about the screamathons we see in other areas of public life. That means that even a word or two can pack a punch.
Finally, Adam offers an unfortunately accurate observation:
News coverage has changed, too. Our first takes on arguments and decisions are published much faster than when I started covering the court in 2008. The introduction of live audio in 2020 was a mixed blessing. I used to attend a majority of the arguments in person. Since the court allows only pen and paper in the courtroom — no electronics — I paid close attention. These days I often listen on my laptop and don't always succeed in avoiding distractions.
I think one of the greatest downsides of live-streaming is that people spend less time attending oral arguments, and reading the transcripts. As a rule, I will only write about a case after I've read the transcript--even if I tune into the livestream. Reporters do not have that luxury.
I look forward to reading the reporters from the Times, and other outlets. I just want them to know I'm watching them.
