The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New in Civitas: Two Hails For The Chief's NDA
"Press conferences would let the American people hear the justices in their own words. And in doing so, the Court would relieve pressure and help to clamp down on leaks."
Last week I wrote about Jodi Kantor's latest report that Chief Justice Roberts requires Court staff (but probably not the Justices) to sign an non-disclosure agreement. I think this is a good step, but I am skeptical of how helpful it would be. Indeed, even after these agreements have been signed, the New York Times continues to write about leaks.
My latest essay for Civitas Outlook offers a different proposal to address the phenomenon of leaks:
There is a better way: the more the Court opens up, the less need there will be for disclosures. Instead of trying to futilely plug the dam to stop leaks, the Court should release a safety valve. The justices can start by holding regular press conferences. . . . In an ideal world, there would be no need for the justices or their surrogates to leak information to the press. But in the real world, this need exists. In my view, press conferences could be a vehicle to relieve some of that pressure. The justices would not disclose confidential information about the Court, but they could address lingering concerns and perhaps reduce the incentives to leak further.
As they say, read the whole thing. I admit this idea may seem crazy at first blush, but press conferences would serve purposes for both the Justices and the public.
Here is my conclusion:
Who will watch the watchmen? If anything, these press conferences would give the justices a chance to forcefully push back against the unfair attacks on them. This task usually falls to surrogates. Reporters are also far better at asking questions than answering them. I routinely contact reporters who err, and the most common response is somewhere between denial and indignation. On balance, these press conferences would let the American people hear the justices in their own words. And in doing so, the Court would relieve pressure and help to clamp down on leaks. To use another metaphor, perhaps the best remedy for the so-called "shadow" docket is sunlight.
This piece is part of a broader series of works on potential reforms the Court might take that would not exclusively benefit either side of the aisle.
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
And what, precisely, do you expect them to say in these press conferences?
Just what the world needs, bringing more politics into the Judicial branch.
Prior to the leak leading to the overturning of Roe, was there that much 'leaking' from the Supreme Court? Never paid much attention, but I thought it was actually seen as one of the few places that leaks did not occur that much.
At the time, there was a lot of reason to suspect Alito was the leaker. He had means, motive, and opportunity. Roberts stopped the investigation short of interviewing the justices, which seems to indicate he suspected Alito, or knew it was Alito, and didn’t want that found out. If so, NDAs from everyone but the justices is mostly security theatre, but also serves to limit leaking to the justices.
At the time, most people suspected someone from the liberal bloc. The Alito theory was a weird triple-bank-shot, 7D chess sort of thing.
Let me fix that for you:
"At the time, most everyone I know and the news sources I allow to penetrate my echosphere implied it was someone from the liberal bloc."
Kinda like in 1972, New Yorker theatre critic Pauline Kael couldn't understand how Nixon won, because no one she knew voted for him.
To be fair, her actual words were more nuanced, acknowledging the info bubble of upper East Side NYC was unlikely to include a lot of Nixon fans.
Here's a conservative's take on that 15 years ago, describing how it applies to both Kael and you:
https://www.commentary.org/john-podhoretz/the-actual-pauline-kael-quote%E2%80%94not-as-bad-and-worse/
So JB, if the audience for this post is yourself and not us readers, as you say, why write: “ As they say, read the whole thing.” Have you not read it? Of course you have just like of course readers are your audience. You want the attention. I don’t know why you hide it.
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism".
Mark Twain, "License of the Press" speech
these press conferences would give the justices a chance to forcefully push back against the unfair attacks on them.
What about the fair attacks? They probably don't want to answer questions about those.
You mean like those against Jackson’s shell necklace?
Not what I had in mind.
Provide video for arguments, opinion announcements, and other court proceedings. When the public information officer releases information to the press, post a copy on the website. Have other justices follow Kagan and Jackson's practice of explaining why they recuse, keyed to the voluntary ethics rules. When justices have public appearances, provide easily accessible video and transcripts.
As to the NDA, apparently, it's basically symbolic and unenforceable. The public learning about it probably net makes it a counterproductive self-inflicted wound.