In Pennsylvania earlier this month, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. insisted the public is misguided to think of Supreme Court justices as political actors.<\/p>\n
In Florida last week, Justice Clarence Thomas, who has served since 1991, waxed poetic about his deep friendships with justices from an earlier era, saying there is nothing \u201cnegative\u201d about his relations with the newer crop of colleagues while acknowledging the court is now \u201cdifferent.\u201d<\/p>\n
And in Washington on Monday night, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the court for disrupting its normal practices through quick-turn, often unexplained emergency orders and warned that the public loses confidence in the court when its decisions appear political.<\/p>\n
As the justices have traveled the country this month for public appearances, a traditional part of the court\u2019s schedule after finishing oral arguments for the term, they have seemed intensely aware of a public debate about their relationships with each other and the court\u2019s own legitimacy.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is so important for the public to perceive us as neutral, nonpartisan,\u201d because \u201cpublic confidence is really all the judiciary has. That\u2019s our currency,\u201d Justice Jackson said during a wide-ranging conversation with a federal judge from South Carolina at the American Law Institute\u2019s annual meeting in Washington.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s incumbent upon us to do things, to act in ways that shore up public confidence.\u201d<\/p>\n
Justice Jackson\u2019s comments hint at what appear to be frayed relations among some of the justices as the court prepares to issue its final rulings, many in deeply consequential cases, before the term ends in late June or early July.<\/p>\n
The tensions come as the court is being pummeled with criticism from across the political spectrum. President Trump is still fuming on social media<\/a> over the court\u2019s decision to invalidate his sweeping tariffs and musing about the likelihood of a major ruling against his effort to end the guarantee of birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n The president has called out two of his own nominees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, for voting against his tariffs, saying they should have been \u201cloyal to the person that appointed them.\u201d<\/p>\n From the left, civil rights organizations and Democrats have decried the court\u2019s significant weakening of the landmark Voting Rights Act last month. The decision has set off Republican-led redistricting efforts to break up majority-Black districts across the South and prompted sharp exchanges between some of the justices.<\/p>\n Soon after the ruling, Chief Justice Roberts defended the court during a judicial conference in Hershey, Pa., and pushed back on what he said was a misunderstanding about its role.<\/p>\n \u201cAt a very basic level, people think we\u2019re making policy decisions,\u201d Chief Justice Roberts said. \u201cI think they view us as purely political actors, which I don\u2019t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Barrett made a similar point during a book talk at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas.<\/p>\n \u201cI think the casual reader about the Supreme Court or its decisions might have the impression we\u2019re just kind of up there, politicians in robes. That\u2019s not how the court functions, and I think if you listen to some oral arguments, you see what the court\u2019s about,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n The decision in the Louisiana matter was 6 to 3 and divided along ideological lines, as is frequently the case in the most controversial rulings.<\/p>\n In response, Justice Elena Kagan stoically read parts of her lengthy dissent aloud from the bench, a rare moment for the liberal justice known for seeking compromise, signaling her strong disagreement.<\/p>\n The decision, she said, provided the \u201clatest chapter in the majority\u2019s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.\u201d Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson signed on to the dissent.<\/p>\n A follow-up ruling expediting the Louisiana decision in a way that allowed Republicans in the state to quickly redraw its maps ahead of the midterms, led to sharp accusations from Justice Jackson that the majority was playing politics.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power,\u201d Justice Jackson wrote then, on behalf of only herself.<\/p>\n That prompted a strong response from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who called Justice Jackson\u2019s assertions \u201ca groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.\u201d He was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch.<\/p>\n It has been Justice Jackson who has been most willing to criticize the court, increasingly alone. On Monday, she offered anew a sharp critique of her conservative colleagues\u2019 handling of a series of brief emergency orders that have allowed many of the Trump administration\u2019s policies to take effect on a temporary basis.<\/p>\n There are \u201creal world consequences that are occurring, and no one really has a clear sense of why it\u2019s happening or what the court\u2019s reasoning is. So I just think we can and should be better,\u201d she told Judge Richard Gergel of the U.S. District Court in South Carolina.<\/p>\n Even when the justices are ideologically divided and exchange sharp words in their written opinions, they like to highlight in public appearances their ability to get along despite substantive disagreements.<\/p>\n Justice Sotomayor, a Democratic nominee, and Justice Barrett, a Republican nominees, headlined a series of joint appearances two years ago to make the point. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, and Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, had a storied odd-couple friendship.<\/p>\n