This is the second piece in a series on what I believe the court can, and should, do better.
***
The Supreme Court justices have an unusual relationship with the press. The court issues what are known as “hard passes” to certain journalists, who have reserved seats to attend the court’s public sessions. On occasion, the court issues general press releases. Every year on Dec. 31, the chief justice issues his annual report about the court’s business. The chief justice will sometimes send a surrogate to speak for him, such as his counselor. And on rarer occasions, the chief justice releases statements to the press, usually concerning what he perceives to be a problem confronting the judiciary.
Individual justices are under no obligation to talk to the press, but they do so on their own terms. When the justices have books to sell, they will allow reporters to interview them, often in their chambers. Justices also do public speaking events but typically will only take pre-approved questions. The circuit justice (each justice presides over a particular circuit) will usually take friendly questions from other judges at the circuit judicial conferences. Some of these gaggles are recorded, others are not.
In private, justices will talk to specific reporters off the record. The reporter then can disclose some, or all, that they learn, though without attribution to a particular justice. A “source close to the Court” is mentioned. A justice will, on rare occasion, publicly chastise the press. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia once derided an article by legendary Supreme Court reporter Tony Mauro as “mauronic.” And in the Dick Cheney duckhunt case, Scalia charged that many press outlets did “not even have the facts right” and gave “largely inaccurate and uninformed opinions.” Judges far more commonly berate journalists in private. Judges have even complained to me about my own writings.
The Supreme Court’s relationship with the press is complicated further by the phenomenon of leaks. Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett recently testified before Congress that all nine justices are frustrated by leaks. Yet, there has been a long, ignominious practice, in which justices, or their surrogates, speak to the press about confidential court information. The court will generally not respond publicly to these leaks. (In a rare departure from this practice, the court acknowledged that the leaked Dobbs draft opinion was “authentic.”)
Even though the Supreme Court keeps the press at a distance, the justices pay close attention to coverage of the court. In 2021, the court’s Public Information Officer said that “[i]n the past year, we've clipped approximately 10,000 news articles related to the court and the justices, roughly half of them tweets.” That totaled more than 100 social media posts every day. Justice Amy Coney Barrett insists that she does not read press coverage about herself and that her husband and assistant screen her social media. In any event, I have good reason to believe that many, if not most, of the justices keep abreast of such writings. After all, one does not become a Supreme Court justice by ignoring what people think about them.
My proposal for holding press conferences is unconventional, but I think it would be a net positive. At regular intervals, different members of the Supreme Court would hold a televised press conference before the Supreme Court press corps, as well as members of alternative media outlets, such as podcasters.
Certain topics would of course be off limits. The justices could not opine on any pending cases. They also could not offer any opinions that could trigger a recusal on some matter. But there are a range of topics the justices could discuss. The justices should be pressed on leaks. Indeed, Kagan and Barrett were expressly asked about the Dobbs leak by members of Congress. I suspect if more information is given publicly, there would be fewer leaks. Moreover, I have been critical of Chief Justice John Roberts for selectively speaking out on some issues (such as judicial impeachment), but saying nothing about a series of critical leaks that predated Dobbs. If there are regular press conferences, these statements would become more common, rebutting the charge of selective outrage.
Indeed, I think the justices are ready for primetime. There has been a longstanding annual practice in which two justices would testify before the House Judiciary Committee. They will primarily discuss the court’s budget but also answer some questions about how the court operates. This practice took a hiatus during the pandemic, but resumed with the recent showing from Kagan and Barrett. In 2011, Justices Scalia and Stephen Breyer gave a remarkable joint testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Constitution. We need to hear more from the court, and not just before the appropriations committees.
There are certainly potential risks here. Justices may go off script. In 1991, Justice Thurgood Marshall held an infamous press conference after he announced his retirement. At the time, the conservative judge Clarence Thomas was viewed as a possible replacement for the liberal Marshall. A reporter asked Marshall if President George Bush had any obligation to name a minority justice. Marshall replied that “I don’t think that should be used as an excuse” for “picking the wrong negro.” At least he was honest. And in 2006, Scalia made a vulgar Italian gesture to a reporter by fanning his fingers under his chin.
Other justices have caused controversy with their public statements. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was somewhat notorious for hinting at the outcomes in pending cases. In June 2012, shortly before the Affordable Care Act case was decided, Ginsburg told the American Constitution Society, “This term has been more than usually taxing.”
Judges are good at asking questions, but can be poor at answering them. They could benefit from learning how to hone their messages to a general audience. This skill could even make opinions more readable. And these press conferences would give the justices a chance to forcefully push back against many of the unfair attacks on them.
By allowing the American people to hear the justices in their own words, such press conferences would actually promote the court’s perception as an institution, without changing a single word of an opinion.
Recommended Citation: Josh Blackman, The justices should hold regular press conferences , SCOTUSblog (Aug. 5, 2026, 10:00 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/the-justices-should-hold-regular-press-conferences-/