Ketanji Brown Jackson has earned nearly $3M from her memoir, financial disclosures show

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has joined the ranks of the Supreme Court's most highly-paid authors by collecting a book advance totaling almost $3 million for her memoir, according to a financial disclosure released Tuesday.
Jackson reported receiving $2 million of the advance last year for the book, on top of about $900,000 she was paid in 2023 by publisher Penguin Random House. The book, 'Lovely One,' reached No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list after its release last September.
The amount paid to the court's newest justice is roughly the same figure Justice Sonia Sotomayor received as an advance for her 2014 autobiography, 'My Beloved World.' Her disclosure released Tuesday reports that she received about $132,000 last year from Penguin Random House for her past books and a forthcoming one.
Sotomayor has earned a total of $3.9 million in advances and royalties from her books, according to Fix the Court, a watchdog group that analyzes the justices' annual financial disclosures. That's the highest book-related income of any current justice.
Three other justices have earned more than $1 million in income from books they have written, according to Fix the Court's analysis: Jackson at $2.9 million, Clarence Thomas at $1.5 million and Neil Gorsuch at $1.4 million.
Gorsuch reported in his new disclosure Tuesday a $250,000 advance last year from publisher HarperCollins for a book he co-authored about overregulation, 'Over Ruled.'
Justice Amy Coney Barrett is also writing a book, due out in September, titled 'Listening to the Law,' and published by an imprint of Penguin. She received a $425,000 advance for it in 2021.
Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice whose required financial disclosure was not released Tuesday. Alito delayed filing his report, as he has done each year for the past decade.
Alito requested a 90-day extension, a spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said Tuesday as the reports from the eight other active justices and two retired justices were made public.
The book-related payments to the justices have sometimes complicated their judicial work. Sotomayor has faced criticism in the past for not recusing herself from cases involving Penguin Random House.
But last month, Sotomayor did recuse herself from considering a petition for the court to take up a case that involved Penguin's parent company, Bertelsmann. Four other justices also recused themselves, with most of those recusals likely triggered by the justices' book deals, though none of the justices explained why they were stepping aside. The result was that the court lacked a quorum, so a lower court's ruling in the case was automatically left in place. The lower court had dismissed a lawsuit against the company and various other publishers and authors.
The justices' book deals may prompt more recusals in the coming months in higher-profile cases. Penguin is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in 2023 against Florida officials over their efforts to restrict the availability of books in public school libraries.
The justices' financial disclosures have faced scrutiny in recent years after revelations about undeclared gifts that some of the justices received, as well as expensive trips that were provided to Thomas and Alito by billionaire friends.
The justices are required to disclose gifts valued at more than $480. This year, only Sotomayor disclosed any gifts. She said she accepted a $1,437 trip to Kansas City, Missouri, last August from a theater company there that was workshopping an adaptation of her diversity-themed children's book, 'Just Ask!'
Sotomayor also said she received a gift of legal treatises that she donated to the Supreme Court's collection.
Of the eight justices whose disclosures were released Tuesday, seven of them reported taking trips last year that were paid for by others. Only Thomas did not report any travel reimbursements.
Jackson appeared to receive the most travel reimbursements. She reported 17 trips, all within the U.S. Most were part of her book tour and paid for by her publisher.
Sotomayor spent 12 days in Europe last July at the expense of New York University and the University of Zurich in connection with speaking at events hosted by those schools. She also reported swapping a ticket she had bought for an unspecified concert last July for another less valuable one that offered 'greater security than the original seating.'
Chief Justice John Roberts reported being reimbursed for his travel expenses to teach a two-week course in Galway, Ireland, last July sponsored by the New England School of Law called 'The Supreme Court of the United States in Historical Perspective.' The class was co-taught by Harvard Law Professor Richard Lazarus, who was Roberts' roommate when both attended Harvard Law.
Roberts and several other justices reported receiving compensation for teaching classes.
Roberts also reported a one-eighth interest in a cottage in County Limerick, Ireland, that he reportedly owns along with other family members. It isn't much of a money-maker. He reported taking in less than $1,000 in rent for it in 2024 and valued his share at less than $15,000.
The released financial disclosures don't capture the justices' full wealth, because assets like homes, federal government retirement accounts and treasury securities don't need to be disclosed. However, the financial picture the forms do provide suggest Justice Brett Kavanaugh has the smallest investment portfolio.
Kavanaugh reported as his only investments bank accounts worth in total between $100,000 and $250,000 and a Texas retirement account worth less than $15,000 that likely belongs to his wife, who was an aide to George W. Bush when he served as Texas governor.
Most of the justices will make $303,600 in salary this year. Roberts, as the chief, gets a bit more: $317,500.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

a day ago

• USA Today

Justice Jackson: Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens

Jackson's dissent in a case about air pollution rules came two weeks after she said the court may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. WASHINGTON − For the second time this month, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has complained that her colleagues are weighing the scales of justice differently depending on who is asking for help. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' she wrote in her disagreement with the majority's June 20 decision that fuel producers can challenge California emissions standards under a federal air pollution law. Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. 'And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's 'remarkably lenient approach' to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the 'stern stance' it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls 'In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing,' Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' he wrote.

Newsweek

a day ago

• Newsweek

Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek. She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens." Why It Matters In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations. California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems." Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster What To Know In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations. In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function." She argued that "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making." Jackson's dissent says the court is "setting us down that path." "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said later in the opinion. Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere "'appearance' of favoritism, founded or not," can undermine public confidence in the highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson's. What People Are Saying Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion." Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: "Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit's opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court's opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief." Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): "The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.

a day ago

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on Supreme Court: ANALYSIS

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests." The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent by those in power. Jackson took particular aim at Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion in a case brought by a retired Florida firefighter with Parkinson's disease who had tried to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act after her former employer, the City of Sanford, canceled extended health insurance coverage for retirees who left the force before serving 25 years because of a disability. Gorsuch wrote that the landmark law only protects "qualified individuals" and that retirees don't count. The ADA defines the qualified class as those who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." "This court has long recognized that the textual limitations upon a law's scope must be understood as no less a part of its purpose than its substantive authorizations," Gorsuch concluded in his opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford. It was joined by all the court's conservatives and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Jackson fired back, accusing her colleagues of reaching a "stingy outcome" and willfully ignoring the "clear design of the ADA to render a ruling that plainly counteracts what Congress meant to -- and did -- accomplish" with the law. She said they had "run in a series of textualist circles" and that the majority "closes its eyes to context, enactment history and the legislature's goals." "I cannot abide that narrow-minded approach," she wrote. Gorsuch retorted that Jackson was simply complaining textualism didn't get her the outcome she wanted, prompting Jackson to take the rare step of using a lengthy footnote to accuse her colleague of the same. Saying the majority has a "unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role," Jackson said her colleagues' "refusal" to consider Congress' intent behind the ADA "turns the interpretative task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences." "By 'finding' answers in ambiguous text," she wrote, "and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined parts of Jackson's dissent, explicitly did not sign-on to the footnote. Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the liberal wing, joined the conservative majority in all three cases in which Jackson dissented, but she did not explain her views. In 2015, Kagan famously said, "we're all textualists now" of the court, but years later disavowed that approach over alleged abuse by conservative jurists. In two other cases decided Friday, Jackson accused her colleagues of distorting the law to benefit major American businesses and in so doing "erode the public trust." She dissented from Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion siding with major tobacco manufacturer, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., that gives retailers the ability to sue the Food and Drug Administration over the denial of new product applications for e-cigarettes. Barrett concluded that a federal law meant to regulate the manufacture and distribution of new tobacco products also allows retailers who would sell the products to seek judicial review of an adverse FDA decision. Jackson blasted the conclusion as "illogical" again taking her colleagues to task for not sufficiently considering Congress' intent or longstanding precedent. "Every available indictor reveals that Congress intended to permit manufacturers -- not retailers -- to challenge the denial," she wrote. Of the court's 7-2 decision by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, giving gasoline producers the right to sue California over limits on emission-producing cars, Jackson said her colleagues were favoring the fuel industry over "less powerful plaintiffs." "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens," she wrote. Jackson argued that the case should have been mooted, since the Trump administration withdrew EPA approval for California's emissions standards thereby eliminating any alleged harm to the auto and fuel industry. "Those of us who are privileged to work inside the Court must not lose sight of this institution's unique mission and responsibility: to rule without fear or favor," she wrote, admonishing her colleagues. The court is next scheduled to convene Thursday, June 26, to release another round of opinions in cases argued this term. Decisions are expected in a dispute over online age verification for adult websites, parental opt-out rights for kids in public schools exposed to LGBTQ themes, and, the scope of nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's second-term policies.