U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson provided a rare glimpse into the rigorous ethical screening process for her public activities during an interview on Michelle Obama’s "The Light" podcast this past Wednesday. The discussion, marking a notable instance of a sitting justice detailing internal court ethics mechanics in a public podcast forum, highlighted the stringent measures employed to ensure judicial impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.
"When I get invitations to do things, I always have them screened by the legal office, by the public information office. Just to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts, it’s not a fundraiser." — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
The conversation, hosted by the former first lady, delved into how Justice Jackson navigates her public role while upholding the high standards of judicial conduct. Michelle Obama initiated the exchange by asking Justice Jackson about managing information exposure to prevent bias and how she handles potential conflicts while staying "above board" regarding news consumption and public engagements.
Justice Jackson, who joined the Supreme Court bench in 2022, explained that two distinct offices within the court assist in shielding justices from ethical entanglements. "There are employees in the court who, in the legal office of the court, in the public information office of the court, who are assisting us in that way," Jackson stated. She elaborated that every invitation she receives undergoes a formal screening process before she decides whether to accept it. "When I get invitations to do things, I always have them screened by the legal office, by the public information office," she confirmed.
The purpose of this comprehensive screening, according to Justice Jackson, is clear and singular: "Just to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts, it’s not a fundraiser." She emphasized the unique constraints judges operate under compared to other public officials, underscoring her commitment to adhering to these limitations. "There are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that," Jackson noted.
Central to her professional obligation, Justice Jackson affirmed, is impartiality. "Our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach," she said, detailing the decision-making process for declining opportunities. She explained the need to "then navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid. So there are lots of things that I end up not accepting for that reason."
Regarding news consumption, Justice Jackson acknowledged that time constraints limit her media diet. "News sources, I think, you know, I don’t have a lot of time, unfortunately," she admitted. Despite these limitations, traditional news outlets remain part of her routine. "I do, you know, the normal general media sources are made available," she said. However, social media presents a different challenge due to its unpredictable nature and varying reliability. "There’s so much social media now. This is a whole different world, and not everything is reliable," Jackson observed.
The justice concluded her remarks on the topic by drawing a clear boundary between judges and ordinary public discourse. "The hardest part for judges is that we really cannot participate," she stated. Michelle Obama responded with a lighthearted comment, "Probably saving you some brain cells!" before reiterating the justice’s primary duty, telling her, "So we need you focused on your opinion."
Justice Jackson occupies one of the three seats on the Supreme Court generally identified with its liberal bloc. Michelle Obama's political engagement has remained prominent, including her active support for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race and other Democratic candidates. Her podcast has featured various high-profile guests, including her husband, former President Barack Obama, though appearances by sitting government officials and politicians have been infrequent. Wednesday’s interview with Justice Jackson stood out, providing a rare public discussion from a sitting justice about the intricate mechanics of judicial ethics screening.
