← The New Yorker Radio Hour
The New Yorker Radio Hour
Ketanji Brown Jackson on Ethics, Trust, and Keeping It Collegial at the Supreme Court
00:25:05
The Supreme Court Justice talks with David Remnick about the decline in public trust and questions about the Court’s ethical code, and how Justices get along in a very partisan era.
Loading summary
Transcript71 lines
- [00:01]
Sponsor Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.
- [00:24]
WNYC Studios is supported by Apple Card.
- [00:27]
Apple Card is the perfect card for your holiday shopping. When you use Apple Card on your iPhone, you'll earn up to 3% daily cash back on every purchase, including products at Apple like a new iPhone 16 or Apple Watch Ultra. Apply now in the Wallet app on your iPhone. Subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch terms and more@applecard.com the New Yorker Radio Hour is.
- [00:51]
Supported by Justin Wines. Since 1981, Justin has been producing their signature Bordeaux style wines from Paso Robles on California's Central Coast. With a rich history of accolades, Justin produces exceptional wines and is proud to be America's number one luxury Cabernet. Whether you're a first time wine drinker or a wine aficionado, Justin has a wine for every celebration and occasion. Visit justinwine.com and enter Radio 20 for 20% off your order.
- [01:21]
Listener Supported WNYC Studios.
- [01:28]
This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker.
- [01:37]
David Remnick
Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Since the founding of this country, just 116 people have served as Supreme Court justices. The 116th is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Biden in 2022. Jackson's two years have been marked by major decisions that define a new conservative era for the Court. She took her seat just days after the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe vs Wade. Jackson wrote a blistering dissent to the end of affirmative action, the so called Harvard decision. And she dissented as well on presidential immunity, which is surely going to be one of the most consequential cases of our time. She didn't pull her punches there. Jackson wrote that the majority opinion took risks with presidential power that are, and I'm quoting here, intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms. Ketanji Brown Jackson has just published a memoir about her family, her early life, and how she got to the highest position in American law. The book is called Lovely One. Tell me a little bit about receiving the news of your becoming a Supreme Court Justice. Paint a picture for us if you will, about how that news was Received and what was said and how it was celebrated.
- [03:03]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Oh, well, goodness. Wow. It was incredible. But, you know, one of the things your listeners should know is that there's a pretty long lead up to getting appointed to be on the Supreme Court or any other court, because you have to be vetted by the white. You have to go through a long period of answering questions and filling out paperwork. So I knew I was possibly in the running. And, you know, I actually talk in the book about sitting down with my family, my teenage daughters at the time, and really wanting to make sure that this would be a comfortable transition for them if I were to get the nomination, because one of my daughters is neurodivergent, and I was concerned that the spotlight would not be something that she would want to have. So we talked it through, and everyone was supportive. And when I got the nomination, I was surprised because the President had announced that he was going to nominate or choose and publicly announce the person who was going to get the appointment by the end of the month. And this was a few days before the end of the month. And I thought, surely I didn't get it, because he waited until the last minute. Someone else is out celebrating. I'm not gonna get. And so when he called me, which is actually recorded, I was totally, totally floored. Hello, Judge Jackson? Yes.
- [04:35]
David Remnick
This is Joe Biden. How are you?
- [04:38]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
I am wonderful. How are you, Mr. President?
- [04:41]
David Remnick
Well, you're going to be more wonderful. I'd like you to go to the Supreme Court.
- [04:43]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
How about that, sir? I would be so honored.
- [04:47]
David Remnick
Well, I'm honored to nominate you.
- [04:50]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
And my family, of course, was overjoyed. Many of my family members, my husband especially, said that they just knew. They knew that this was my destiny and had known for a long time.
- [05:01]
David Remnick
Really? Did you?
- [05:03]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
You know, I don't think I knew. I certainly wanted it. Even when I was in high school, I apparently wrote in my yearbook that I wanted to be the first black female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage because I love theater, too. So I always had a dream of doing this work. But my brother, my husband, and others had said that they'd seen this coming for a long time.
- [05:34]
David Remnick
Now, when President Biden appointed you and you looked at all the other justices, the eight other justices, were you concerned that because of your philosophy of the law and your own views of the law, that you would be in a minority for a very long time to come?
- [05:52]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
You know, I don't know that I was concerned. I did appreciate that, having been mentored by Justice Breyer, who was my justice for whom I clerked years ago. I had a sense that he saw the law in a way that sort of put him in a minority and that I too, might be in that position as well. But I don't think it was a concern for me.
- [06:18]
David Remnick
One of the first dissents of yours that I read in full, it was so impressive but alarming, was on the immunity decision, something you described as a five alarm fire. Why?
- [06:33]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Well, that opinion really, for me, highlighted a difference of opinion about the way in which the Constitution frames the separation of powers and the extent to which the executive branch leader should be treated differently than others in our system when it comes to alleged criminal activity. And I had a pretty strong feeling and view about how criminal justice works. I had been a public defender in my time as a lawyer and had served on the Sentencing Commission and really tried to lay out, in my opinion, the ways in which I thought the criminal justice system could accommodate allegations of wrongdoing by the executive without forming an immunity which sort of takes the executive or the person who holds an immunity outside of the ordinary process. And in my opinion, I talked about the fact that it appears that, you know, the sort of background norm was that the Justice Department had determined that it was possible for a president to be prosecuted, and perhaps that was doing some work in terms of preventing the kinds of abuses that one could imagine by an executive branch officer. And so the concern I think that I was trying to point to was if an immunity was announced, would that incentivize an office holder to push the envelope with respect to the exercise of their authorities?
- [08:16]
David Remnick
And you do think it's an incentive, potential incentive?
- [08:20]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
I thought one could imagine that being the case. And it was certainly a concern and one that I did not perceive the Constitution to permit.
- [08:32]
David Remnick
It would be valuable to get your thoughts on ethical issues around the Court. Hugo Black was a former member of the Klan. William Douglas had, let's say, a complicated private life. Abe Fortas, Ethics kept him from becoming chief justice. In recent years, ethics questions have been about receiving things, undisclosed gifts and travel and property deals. How much damage did those practices do to the Court's reputation? And do you agree that the Court's statement about ethics and its ethics code was too weak?
- [09:09]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
I would say that, you know, the Court has recently adopted an ethics code that is largely modeled on the lower court's ethics code, which is something that certainly has been around for a long time.
- [09:28]
David Remnick
I guess what I'm asking is, does it have an enforcement mechanism? The New York Times called this development Toothless, the Brennan center for justice, which is at NYU Law School, of course, wrote that it was too weak because quoting here, the justices have proven themselves troublingly adept at sidestepping the current rules, whether for RVs, tuition, fishing trips, or real estate deals. In other words, who is in charge of enforcing this and can it be enforced if it's just kind of on the good intentions of the justices?
- [10:04]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Well, there isn't an enforcement mechanism in the code as it currently exists. And, you know, different justices have different views about the enforceability of the code. As a lower court judge, I was subject to an ethics code that was enforceable. My view is that I haven't seen a good reason why the ethics code that the Supreme Court adopted shouldn't be enforceable. Lower court judges have to abide by an enforceable ethics code. Other justices have posited certain ways in which it could be made enforceable, but we have not yet determined or decided to do that.
- [10:49]
David Remnick
The profession, or in my case, the trade that I'm in. Public confidence is not exactly soaring for journalists. So I readily admit that. But a long list of public surveys have confirmed a decline of public trust in the Supreme Court as well. Last month, the latest poll by the National Opinion Research center at the University of Chicago found that 7 in 10Americans believe the justices are, quote, putting ideology or personal politics above impartiality. If you take a step back, how do you explain this state of affair? How much does it concern you?
- [11:27]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
I think it's a very big concern. You know, I think that my mentor, Justice Breyer, used to say all the time, and still does, that public trust is really all we have in the judiciary, that we don't have the power of the pursed, we don't have the military or any sort of force. The rule of law really is upheld because of the public's belief in the Court and its rulings. And so when there's a waning in that kind of trust, it certainly is a cause for concern. I think it's something that the Court really needs to take seriously. But I do want to be clear. I think that there is a distinction between public trust waning as a result of the outcome of any particular decision, because the Court has to operate, it has a duty to interpret the Constitution and the law. And there are times when the Court will issue rulings that may not be popular. You know, when we're sort of a counter majoritarian at times because the Constitution is prescribing limits on government authority and upholding individual rights in ways that may not be popular. But that's different, I think, than public trust waning because of concerns about partiality. And so I do think that these are very important issues.
- [13:06]
David Remnick
So you think the decline in public trust is not because of any one issue or decision like Roe being overturned? You think it's because of the behavior of the Justices in some way or the political climate out there? In other words, what do you think is responsible for the Court's decline in public confidence?
- [13:26]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what is responsible for the decline. I was just pointing out that I think.
- [13:32]
David Remnick
Do you all get together and discuss it?
- [13:36]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
I'm not at liberty to talk about what we discuss, but I don't know. I mean, I'm not a journalist. I haven't surveyed the public. I'm just pointing out that there could be different reasons and those might have different solutions, for example, or there might not be anything you can do about one or the other, depending upon where, what the nature of the problem is.
- [14:05]
David Remnick
That's Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Supreme Court. We'll continue in a moment. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour.
- [14:23]
Sponsor Announcer
The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported by Fundrise.
- [14:26]
Buy Low, Sell High. Buy low, Sell High. It's a simple concept, but not necessarily an easy concept. Right now, high interest rates have crushed the real estate market. Prices are falling and properties are available at a discount, which means fundrise believes now is the time to expand the Fundrise Flagship Fund's billion dollar real estate portfolio. You can add the Fundrise Flagship Fund to your portfolio in minutes by visiting fundrise.com TNY that's f u n d r I s e dot com TNY carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the Fundrise Flagship Fund before investing. This and other information can be found in the Fund's prospectus@fundrise.com Flagship this is a paid advertisement.
- [15:18]
The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported by Justin Wines. Since 1981, Justin has been producing their signature Bordeaux style wines from Paso Robles on California's central coast. With a rich history of accolades, Justin produces exceptional wines and is proud to be America's number one luxury Cabernet. Whether you're a first time wine drinker or a wine aficionado, Justin has a wine for every celebration and occasion. Visit justinwine.com and enter Radio 20 for 20% off your order.
- [15:47]
Alexis Ohanian
Hi, I'm Alexis Ohanian. You may know me as one of the co founders of Reddit, but more recently a large part of my identity is being a father to my wonderful daughters in my podcast, Business Dad, I hope to open the conversation about working parents a bit. You'll get to hear from a wide range of business dads, from Rainn Wilson and Guy Raz to Todd Carmichael and Shane Battier to find out how they balance being a with a successful career. Business dad is available now, so be sure to listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
- [16:27]
David Remnick
This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, and I'm speaking today with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. We spoke about the code of ethics at the Supreme Court and a troubling decline in the public's trust of the Court. But if people perceive the Court as politicized, Jackson stressed that the justices still try very hard to get along. We'll continue our conversation Now. I want to ask a question about the culture of the Court. Stephen Breyer, for whom you clerked, published an essay in the New York Times earlier this year highlighting the personal bonds between members of the Supreme Court. He wrote, in my 28 years on the court, I never heard a voice raised in anger in the private discussions with fellow justices. There was bridge playing, famously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg went to the opera with Justice Scalia. There had been very longstanding relationships in the court, but some people read that and thought it was beside the point. The Times published an essay later by Linda Greenhouse entitled, who cares if the Supreme Court Justices get along? What do you want people to know about the culture of the court? What's it really like?
- [17:47]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
I certainly care if the Supreme Court justices get along. I mean, we have lifetime appointments, so it's nice to get along with the people you work with. I think the culture is very collegial. We have a job to do, and we are a very, very small group of people who are entrusted with this responsibility. And so we take our jobs seriously. We do try to do social things together every now and again. We certainly have the opportunity.
- [18:20]
David Remnick
Throw me, throw me a bone. Throw me a bone. Give me an example of that.
- [18:24]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
All right, let me give you an example. So when a new justice comes on, as I did, the justice who precedes them has to throw a party for them at the court. And that justice does some research and tries to figure out something interesting about the new Justice. And then they make the party themed around that. So Justice Barrett found out that I loved theater and she threw a Hamilton themed party where she invited a former Broadway actress to come and sing numbers from the show. And she made a big sign that said the room where it happens. That's now up in my chambers. And it was really lovely. And, you know, every justice has that the same sort of story about different things that their predecessor did. And everybody came and their spouses to welcome the new justice.
- [19:23]
David Remnick
Do you have any relationships on the court like Ruth Bader Ginsburg did, going to the opera with Justice Scalia?
- [19:33]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Justice Barrett and I are probably the most similar in terms of our families. So we talk about our kids and we compare notes about that. Justice Sotomayor has been a really wonderful mentor to me, helping me learn. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia had served together on the lower courts, so they had known each other for many, many years before they came to the Supreme Court. And I that also helped to facilitate their relationship.
- [20:05]
David Remnick
Sometimes the language in opinions and dissents are not soft. They can be pretty pointed. In your dissenting opinion of the affirmative action case, for example, you said that the majority showed a, quote, let them eat cake obliviousness, which is pretty damning and says what it says. When you publish a dissent like that, it's very critical of someone else's view. How does lunch conversation go the next day? How do relations hold up?
- [20:36]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Well, you know, the court, I think, is pretty good at compartmentalizing. One of the rules of lunch conversation is that you don't get to talk about the substance of any cases.
- [20:48]
David Remnick
Whoa, whoa, wait. You can talk about business at lunch.
- [20:51]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
It's all polite. No, it's all polite. It's all movies and sports and kids performances and that kind of thing.
- [21:04]
David Remnick
Really?
- [21:05]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Really.
- [21:05]
David Remnick
And people stick to that?
- [21:07]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Yes, they do. And so, you know, it is a good.
- [21:11]
David Remnick
It's both shocking and disappointing at the same time.
- [21:14]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Really. Why? Why?
- [21:16]
David Remnick
Because I would think you'd have at it. I mean, I would think that lawyers and judges would live for this, for sharp argument and discussion.
- [21:26]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Oh, well, you do have sharp argument and discussion at the appointed time, which is in the conference. But I think it's actually fantastic that we demonstrate the ability to set aside our sharp arguments and disagreements, which we've had and still come together and break bread together and get along outside of the office. I think that's really important.
- [21:53]
David Remnick
During the 2020 election, while Donald Trump was still president, he wrote this. I'll spare you the capital letters. A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution, unquote. Is there really any situation in which part of the Constitution can be terminated?
- [22:18]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
No.
- [22:20]
David Remnick
Do you want to say more?
- [22:24]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
I mean, you know, I think it's really important to go Back to basics, as I've tried to do since my time in office and certainly since I've been on the Supreme Court. The judges and justices of the Supreme Court take an oath called the Constitutional Oath, and it requires that we support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So our number one responsibility is to defend the Constitution. And therefore, as a general matter, I cannot think of a situation in which the provisions of the Constitution can lawfully be set aside.
- [23:15]
David Remnick
This question may have seemed either wild or naive some years ago, but maybe not so much now. What happens if a decision of the Court against a president is simply ignored? I'm not sure I'm crazy to ask such a thing. Does the Court have any mode of redress?
- [23:35]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Well, this relates back a little bit to the question that you asked about public opinion and the extent to which the Court has any means of enforcing its own opinions, its own rulings. And, you know, the answer, as far as I know, is there is no recourse other than, you know, public response. The understanding that we would be in a situation in which there would be. There would be authorities that are not following the Court's rulings. This happened with fair frequency in the 1960s, after the court started handing down rulings that were enforcing provisions of law requiring desegregation. For example, in many places in the.
- [24:35]
David Remnick
South, there was Little Rock and elsewhere.
- [24:37]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Sure, exactly. There were court opinions that were handed down enforcing desegregation orders or handing down desegregation rulings, and there was no mechanism to enforce them other than the federal government, the president, sending in troops. You know, you mentioned Little Rock. Those kinds of things actually required the enforcement of the executive branch in order to have them happen.
- [25:08]
David Remnick
In 2015, Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the court. Mitch McConnell refused to hold hearings. He stalled until Donald Trump was elected and nominated his own pick for the seat. What could a president legally, just as a question of. Not of politics, but of legality, what could a president do in that situation? Because inevitably it might happen again?
- [25:31]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Oh, my goodness. I honestly don't know. And I don't know that I could say even if I did know. Yes, the president has the prerogative of nominating people, but the Senate is supposed to confirm them. And under the rules as they currently exist, Senators exercise that prerogative or not.
- [25:58]
David Remnick
I wrote a book about Barack Obama called the Bridge and spent a lot of time thinking about and reporting about his time at Harvard Law School. And it was really an interesting chapter in his life. I wonder what was for you most formative at Harvard Law School, either politically or in terms of your legal thinking?
- [26:21]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Well, in the book I talk about my two years on the Law Review, which I think was the most formative. You know, I was not a law student who was very assertive in class. You were quiet. I was pretty quiet actually. And you know, there, which may seem a little strange now given, given my personality, but at the time, you know, I went to law school, I was excited to be there. I had known I wanted to be a lawyer ever since I was very young when my father went back to law school, when I was in elementary school. So, you know, I was just very happy to be on site. But it's a little intimidating, I think, to go to Harvard Law School and have all these folks are coming in guns blazing in all of your classes. And you know, I. But I was fortunate enough to get onto the Law Review and I found that to be just an extraordinary time. So I just. It was like a small community within a larger law school and I just loved it.
- [27:35]
David Remnick
Justice Jackson, thank you so much. I really appreciate your time.
- [27:39]
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Thank you so much.
- [27:44]
David Remnick
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her new book is called Lovely A Memoir.
- [27:56]
Sponsor Announcer
The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of Tune Yard with additional music by Louis Mitchell and Jared Paul. This episode was produced by Max Bolton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Geoffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul and Ursula Sommer with guidance from Emily Bottine and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Alex Barish, Victor Guan and Alejandra Deckett. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund. NYC now delivers the most up to date local news from WNYC and Gothamist every morning, midday and evening with three updates a day. Listeners get breaking news, top headlines and in depth coverage from across New York City by sponsoring programming like NYC now. You'll reach our community of dedicated listeners with premium messaging and an uncluttered audio experience. Visit sponsorship.wnyc.org to get in touch and find out more.