Supreme Court justices are cashing in big on book deals while shaping the nation’s laws.
NBC News reported that the latest financial disclosure reports for 2024, released on Tuesday, unveiled a treasure trove of outside income for several justices, primarily from lucrative publishing contracts and academic side hustles.
Leading the pack is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who pocketed over $2 million from Penguin Random House for her memoir "Lovely One," part of a nearly $3 million total haul that includes a $900,000 payment from the prior year.
While some may cheer her storytelling success, it raises eyebrows about whether justices should be moonlighting as celebrity authors when their day job is interpreting the Constitution. After all, shouldn’t the highest court be above the allure of bestseller lists?
Jackson isn’t alone in turning judicial wisdom into literary gold. Justice Sonia Sotomayor snagged a fresh $60,000 advance from the same publisher, adding to a staggering near-$4 million in career book earnings, according to ethics watchdog Fix the Court. One has to wonder if these hefty payouts risk turning the Supreme Court into a book club with robes.
Meanwhile, Justice Neil Gorsuch secured a $250,000 advance from HarperCollins for a co-authored work titled "Over Ruled."
It’s a tidy sum for a side project, but when justices are penning books on legal overreach, shouldn’t their focus remain on curbing judicial overreach from the bench? A clever title doesn’t quite balance the scales of concern.
Other justices are dipping into academia for extra income, perhaps a less flashy but still notable endeavor. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh each earned just over $30,000 teaching at Notre Dame Law School, while Gorsuch pulled in a similar amount instructing at George Mason University.
Barrett, once a law professor at Notre Dame, also has a book slated for release this year, though no financial details were disclosed yet. One can only speculate if her upcoming work will rival the million-dollar deals of her colleagues. For now, it’s just another chapter in the justices’ growing side hustle saga.
Not every justice is joining the extracurricular earnings race, however. Justice Clarence Thomas reported no outside income in the disclosures, sticking strictly to his judicial role. In a world where side gigs seem to be the norm, his restraint might just be a refreshing nod to tradition.
Then there’s Justice Samuel Alito, who opted for a 90-day extension to file his report, a move allowed under the law.
While there’s no suggestion of wrongdoing, such delays can fuel public skepticism about transparency in our highest court. After all, shouldn’t those who judge accountability be the first to model it?
These disclosures paint a broader picture of a Supreme Court where several members—Jackson, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor among them—double as authors with enviable publishing contracts.
While there’s nothing inherently wrong with writing books, the sheer scale of these earnings prompts a fair question: are justices being swayed by the progressive cultural currents that often dominate publishing houses? It’s a subtle influence, but one worth watching.
The financial windfalls from memoirs and legal tomes also contrast sharply with the public’s growing demand for judicial ethics reform. When millions are flowing in from outside sources, even if legally earned, it’s hard not to wonder if such income could cloud impartiality or public trust. A court above reproach shouldn’t have to fend off these kinds of doubts.
From a conservative lens, this trend of justices embracing lucrative side projects feels like a departure from the stoic, duty-first ethos that once defined the judiciary.
The allure of fame and fortune through books or lectures risks aligning justices with cultural elites, often pushing narratives that clash with traditional values. It’s a slippery slope that needs a guardrail.
Yet, to be fair, these justices are operating within the rules, and their talents as writers or educators shouldn’t be dismissed outright. Earning money from intellectual work isn’t a crime, and many Americans would jump at similar opportunities. Still, the optics of million-dollar deals for sitting justices are tough to reconcile with the image of an impartial bench.