My second essay for SCOTUSBlog calls on the Justices to hold regular press conferences. Here is a snippet:
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.
I wrote this piece before Justices Kagan and Barrett testified. Their performance, in my view, makes the case for press conferences far stronger.
