The Celebrity Court: Implications of Supreme Court Justices Finding Their Way into the Entertainment Industry

Arissa Lewis*

The Supreme Court is failing its American citizens due to the fame of the Justices themselves.¹ Americans consistently rank the Supreme Court as the “most trusted branch of government,”² yet its credibility is being questioned as the Justices are turned into mainstream celebrity figures, right up there with Taylor Swift and Beyonce.³ This calls into question the integrity of the Court, with Americans questioning if Justices are making decisions in regard to the Constitution or making decisions based on their “brand” or to appease their “fan bases.”⁴ If the latter is true, there are scant solutions in the age of the internet and social media that will help the Justices pivot back to a less idolized governmental role.

The changing perception of Supreme Court Justices has been a novel topic in scholarly research and the world of legal academia.⁵ Yet, those who have studied the issue have reached similar conclusions: the Justices are turning away from the Constitution and towards their followers. A blog post written by Law Professor Richard Hasen describes this issue as being, “rock star Justices, drawing adoring crowds who celebrate these lawyers as though they were teenagers meeting Beyonce.”⁶ Although this analogy may seem as though it is a stretch, mainstream media depictions of the Justices indicate that Hasen is not wrong. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, had two different movies made about her within her last decade on the court,⁷ Justice Scalia gave so many public speeches around the country (oftentimes on non-legal related issues) that they were able to be published in a 4oo-page book,⁸ and there is even an opera about Justices Ginsburg and Scalia, combining their individual legacies into one musical masterpiece.⁹ The identities of the Justices are expanding beyond their spot on the bench and are leading them into the entertainment industry. 

Justices dabbling in the entertainment industry may seem lighthearted, but evidence indicates that their mainstream fame could be a contributor in the polarization of the Court.¹⁰ Studies indicate that seventy-five percent of Americans think a Justice’s opinion is influenced by his or her politics to a “great” or “moderate” extent.¹¹ This creates a paradox: the American population both trusts the Supreme Court’s decisions, yet questions the individual Justices’ abilities to make decisions grounded in the Constitution, rather than politics.¹² Although the individual Justices are tarnishing their own reputations, there is still hope that the Court remains a reputable source to the American people. 

This hope does not change the fact that one in four Americans think the Justices are making decisions for their own self-interests.¹³ Scholars are consistently noting that Justices focus on writing their decisions to their academic fanbases of professors and legal scholars to gain prestige in legal academia.¹⁴ In a more traditional role, Justices would focus primarily on providing guidance to the lower courts and less on speaking to “those who have the ability to make or break judicial reputations,” including law professors and journalists.¹⁵

Although there has yet to be a study on how the entertainment industry directly affects the Court, personal political motivations may be a leading reason on why the Court has become more inefficient. Data indicates that the Court, “is deciding half as many cases as it did a generation ago and using twice as many pages to do so.”¹⁶ Each of the individual Justices having their own political agendas takes up more time, and more pages, to explain and justify in an opinion. This leads to an overall less efficient Court that is bogged down by the Justices’ need to each voice their different takes on a particular issue.

With increasing access to technology and media, the Court must learn to adapt to the spotlight while not jeopardizing its official duties. Although it is all but impossible for the justices to abandon their newfound spotlight in the entertainment industry, there have been many suggestions as to how the Court can overcome these problems. One of the leading solutions is changing the Court’s opinions to be anonymous, which would relieve the pressure of Justices to give into the wishes of their fan bases.¹⁷ Another potential solution is requiring the Justices to unanimously agree on rulings, which forces them to prioritize compromise over political parties.¹⁸ These solutions are highly unlikely, yet the endless Justice-themed movie, book, and opera opportunities remain so vast, it is doubtful that they will be leaving the entertainment industry anytime soon.

* Arissa Lewis, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law Class of 2025. Associate Editor, University of St. Thomas Law Journal.

1. Suzanna Sherry, Our Kardashian Court (and How to Fix It), 106 Iowa L. Rev. 181, 182 (2020). ↩︎
2. Kathleen Hall Jamieson & Michael Hennessy, Public Understanding of and Support for the Courts: Survey Results, 95 Geo. L.J. 899, 899 (2007). ↩︎
3. Richard L. Hasen, Siloed Justice and the Law/Politics Divide, Balkinization(Apr. 2, 2019),https://balkin.blogspot.com/2019/04/siloed-justices-and-lawpolitics-divide.html. ↩︎
4. Sherry, supra note 1, at 182. ↩︎
5. Sherry, supra note 1, at 182. ↩︎
6. Hasen, supra note 3. ↩︎
7. Sherry, supra note 1, at 185. ↩︎
8. Sherry, supra note 1, at 186. ↩︎
9. Sherry, supra note 1, at 186. ↩︎
10. Sherry, supra note 1, at 182. ↩︎
11. Jamieson & Hennessy, supra note 2, at 900. ↩︎
12. Jamieson & Hennessy, supra note 2, at 900. ↩︎
13. Jamieson & Hennessy, supra note 2, at 899. ↩︎
14. Sherry, supra note 1, at 200. ↩︎
15. Frederick Schauer, Abandoning the Guidance Function: Morse v. Frederick, 2007 Sup. Ct. Rev. 205, 234 (2007). ↩︎
16. Sherry, supra note 1, at 183. ↩︎
17. Sherry, supra note 1, at 201. ↩︎
18. Sherry, supra note 1, at 198. ↩︎