RESEARCH STARTER

News media coverage and the Supreme Court

News media coverage of the Supreme Court plays a critical role in bridging the gap between the Court's activities and the American public. While the Court operates with significant autonomy, it does not exist in isolation; rather, the media serves to educate citizens about the Court's decisions and reflect public reactions. Despite this essential function, many studies reveal a concerning level of public ignorance regarding the Court, with a notable percentage of Americans unable to name even one justice. The media often emphasizes certain cases, particularly those related to civil rights, while neglecting others deemed less newsworthy.

Coverage tends to focus on conflicts within the Court and the political implications of decisions, especially during confirmation hearings, which can generate expansive media attention. However, the complexities of Court proceedings and the episodic nature of its business present unique challenges for reporters. Unlike other governmental branches, the Supreme Court does not engage in public relations, which can lead to misinterpretations of its rulings. Although the rise of digital media has increased public interest in the Court, the overall coverage remains limited compared to that of the presidency and Congress. In this evolving media landscape, the effectiveness of coverage may vary, influencing public perception and understanding of the judiciary.

Full Article

DESCRIPTION: Reporting by television, newspaper, radio, wire service, and other forms of mass communication on the activities of the Supreme Court.

SIGNIFICANCE: The aloof nature and complexities of the Court have resulted in historically limited news coverage of the institution, despite the media’s role as a primary conduit to the general public for information regarding Court activities.

Although the Supreme Court wields considerable autonomy and power, the Court has never operated in a vacuum. The news media serve as a vital link between the Court and the American public, educating citizens on Court activities and communicating the public’s reaction back to the Court. However, the extent to which press coverage and public opinion influence the Court’s decisions is not definitively known.

Despite the media’s vital communication role, many studies indicate low public knowledge of the Court. The majority of cases remain largely invisible to most citizens, and some research suggests that many Americans cannot name a single justice of the Supreme Court.

Media coverage often prioritizes certain issues before the Court at the expense of others. Research suggests that while the media may not directly tell the public what to think, its coverage influences the topics to which the public gives some thought. However, the public’s response to coverage is not always consistent. Some issues receive relatively little public attention, despite heavy coverage by the news media.

Often, coverage of Court decisions is ancillary to reporting on the reaction of the public and political elites to those decisions. Story selection frequently relies on the perceived “newsworthiness” of the Court’s actions. Civil rights and liberties issues are more likely to be covered as business or economic issues, and studies suggest that many cases covered by national media were not considered very important by legal experts. Also, reporters often make the mistake of suggesting that the Court’s denial of certiorari is an automatic affirmation of a lower court’s decision.

Generally, media attention to the justices increases significantly during nominations, controversies, or major rulings. For example, the controversy surrounding allegations by Anita Hill of sexual harassment against then-Court nominee Clarence Thomas received extensive coverage. In 2018, the confirmation hearing of Justice Brett Kavanaugh received extensive news coverage due to accusations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford. Often, appointment coverage focuses on the confirmation process as a test of the nominating president’s power. Conflict in decisions is another key determinant of newsworthiness. For example, in the 2021 and 2022 terms, only about 29 and 43 percent of decisions were unanimous, respectively. Coverage often focused on these conflicting opinions. Conflicts are frequently politicized by the media to enhance perceived dissension within the Court.

In the twenty-first century, the rise of digital media and social media platforms transformed how the public engages with Supreme Court news. While traditional media coverage remained limited, social media platforms became a significant source of immediate information dissemination and discussion about justices. Controversies surrounding the appointment of justices received extensive news coverage, as did the Court’s ruling on President Donald Trump’s tax returns. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a celebrity, embraced by a younger generation of Americans.

Public confidence in the Court fluctuated in the 2010s and 2020s. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that only 47 percent of Americans held a favorable view of the Court, with 51 percent expressing an unfavorable opinion. The 2022 leak and subsequent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), marked a shift in Supreme Court media coverage, characterized by increased scrutiny of the justices’ personal conduct, financial disclosures, and relationships with donors. Media coverage has increasingly focused on ethics controversies, political framing, and concerns about the Court’s legitimacy, reflecting a sustained shift rather than a temporary change. Investigations by sources like ProPublica and Politico highlighted undisclosed gifts and potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. Scrutiny of the justices has continued, including criticism of the Court’s self-enforced ethics code and recusals in cases involving financial or publishing ties.

Challenges to News Coverage

Much of the Court’s business is conducted behind the scenes, creating an almost mystical aura that translates into comparatively little media attention on actual cases. One study found that the presidency and the Congress receive substantially more news coverage than the Court. In 1989, for example, the Court handed down full decisions in 144 cases, yet only 24 percent received any television news coverage, and only 11 percent were covered by all three major networks. This drastically changed, however, with the advent of cable news coverage, the internet, and social media.

Several factors make coverage of Court activities particularly challenging. Court activity is inherently episodic, and reporters do not know when the Court will issue specific opinions. However, media representatives must, within a few hours, understand, interpret, and summarize the Court’s decisions and reasoning and suggest the implications of decisions that may have taken months to reach. Legal news is easily misinterpreted; the complexities of language and ideas, combined with journalists’ need for concise and timely reporting, all work against comprehensive and accurate coverage.

Generally, the Court has demonstrated little regard for the media in terms of timing or presentation of decisions. Historically, the press did not receive proofs of opinions, and even then, the Court did not provide full text until opinions had been completely read in the courtroom. A hasty and inaccurate inference made by the Associated Press during the Gold Clause Cases (1935) led to the Associated Press reporting a decision that was the exact opposite of the Court’s intent. As a result, media representatives now receive full text of opinions the moment the justice starts reading from the bench.

In 1965, the Court changed its long-standing practice of reporting decisions only on Mondays. These “Decision Monday” sessions often resulted in the release of up to fifteen decisions within a few hours. The change allowed the Court to announce decisions at any session. A substantial share of decisions is still released late in the term, especially in June.

Unlike other areas of government, the Court generally does not comment on its decisions and cannot engage in public relations activities. There are no briefings, press conferences, or public relations personnel to elaborate on the Court’s decisions; the Court’s public information office simply provides decisions and other data to media representatives without explanations, significant commentary, or background materials. Consequently, interest groups often act as informal press secretaries to the Court, giving their group’s own interpretation of opinions to the media. Justice Clarence Thomas has continued to question the precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), a foundational case for press freedom, raising concerns about potential changes to legal protections for the media. Between 2025 and 2026, conflicts over media access intensified, including a lawsuit by The New York Times against the Pentagon over reporting restrictions, highlighting the continued importance of Supreme Court First Amendment precedents.

The Court’s work is primarily reflected in words, the forte of print journalism. Consequently, only a minority of Court decisions were covered by major television networks in the late 1990s and early 2000s. While major television networks may still only report major news or cases from the Court in the twenty-first century, information about the Court and its rulings can be accessed at any time on internet news sites devoted to the Court’s proceedings. However, in the mid-2020s, the number of print and television reporters who exclusively covered the Court remained small.


Bibliography

Birnbaum, Emily. “Poll: More than Half of Americans Can’t Name a Single Supreme Court Justice.” The Hill, Aug. 2018, thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/403992-poll-more-than-half-of-americans-cant-name-single-supreme-court. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Boston, Joshua, and Christopher N. Krewson. “The Political Court: Newspaper Coverage, Appointment Politics, and Public Support of the United States Supreme Court, 1980–2023.” Political Communication, 2025, pp. 1–21, doi:10.1080/10584609.2025.2467905. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, et al. “The Future of the US Supreme Court: Ethics, Polarization, and Reform.” Journal of Policy History, Cambridge UP, 3 June 2025, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/future-of-the-us-supreme-court-ethics-polarization-and-reform/C3F5DB04D8DAF3B0B02D358E7E2D3830. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Copeland, Joseph. “Favorable Views of Supreme Court Remain Near Historic Low.” Pew Research, 3 Sep. 2025, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/08/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-remain-near-historic-low. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Epstein, Lee, editor. Contemplating Courts. Congressional Quarterly, 1995.

Greenhouse, Linda. “Telling the Court’s Story: Justice and Journalism at the Supreme Court.” Yale Law Journal, Apr. 1996, openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/8953/57_105YaleLJ1537_April1996_.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Hindman, Elizabeth Blanks. Rights vs. Responsibilities: The Supreme Court and the Media. Greenwood Press, 1997.

Klein, Charlotte. “Is the Media Finally Waking Up to a New Kind of Supreme Court Coverage?” Vanity Fair, 17 July 2023, www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/supreme-court-justices-media. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Mangan, Dan, and Kevin Breuninger. “Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, Ending 50 Years of Federal Abortion Rights.” CNBC, 24 June 2022, www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-by-supreme-court-ending-federal-abortion-rights.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Mansoor, Sanya. “New York ‘Times’ Report Details New Justice Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Misconduct Claims.” Time, 15 Sept. 2019, time.com/5677929/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Pengelly, Martin. “New Book Shows Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Once Supported Press Freedom.” The Guardian, 12 Feb. 2025, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/12/clarence-thomas-times-sullivan-precedent-book. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Slotnick, Elliot E. Television and the Supreme Court. Cambridge UP, 1988.

Svirnovskiy, Gregory. “New York Times Sues Pentagon over Press Restrictions.” Politico, 4 Dec. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/12/04/new-york-times-pentagon-press-credentials-00676451. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Full Article

DESCRIPTION: Reporting by television, newspaper, radio, wire service, and other forms of mass communication on the activities of the Supreme Court.

SIGNIFICANCE: The aloof nature and complexities of the Court have resulted in historically limited news coverage of the institution, despite the media’s role as a primary conduit to the general public for information regarding Court activities.

Although the Supreme Court wields considerable autonomy and power, the Court has never operated in a vacuum. The news media serve as a vital link between the Court and the American public, educating citizens on Court activities and communicating the public’s reaction back to the Court. However, the extent to which press coverage and public opinion influence the Court’s decisions is not definitively known.

Despite the media’s vital communication role, many studies indicate low public knowledge of the Court. The majority of cases remain largely invisible to most citizens, and some research suggests that many Americans cannot name a single justice of the Supreme Court.

Media coverage often prioritizes certain issues before the Court at the expense of others. Research suggests that while the media may not directly tell the public what to think, its coverage influences the topics to which the public gives some thought. However, the public’s response to coverage is not always consistent. Some issues receive relatively little public attention, despite heavy coverage by the news media.

Often, coverage of Court decisions is ancillary to reporting on the reaction of the public and political elites to those decisions. Story selection frequently relies on the perceived “newsworthiness” of the Court’s actions. Civil rights and liberties issues are more likely to be covered as business or economic issues, and studies suggest that many cases covered by national media were not considered very important by legal experts. Also, reporters often make the mistake of suggesting that the Court’s denial of certiorari is an automatic affirmation of a lower court’s decision.

Generally, media attention to the justices increases significantly during nominations, controversies, or major rulings. For example, the controversy surrounding allegations by Anita Hill of sexual harassment against then-Court nominee Clarence Thomas received extensive coverage. In 2018, the confirmation hearing of Justice Brett Kavanaugh received extensive news coverage due to accusations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford. Often, appointment coverage focuses on the confirmation process as a test of the nominating president’s power. Conflict in decisions is another key determinant of newsworthiness. For example, in the 2021 and 2022 terms, only about 29 and 43 percent of decisions were unanimous, respectively. Coverage often focused on these conflicting opinions. Conflicts are frequently politicized by the media to enhance perceived dissension within the Court.

In the twenty-first century, the rise of digital media and social media platforms transformed how the public engages with Supreme Court news. While traditional media coverage remained limited, social media platforms became a significant source of immediate information dissemination and discussion about justices. Controversies surrounding the appointment of justices received extensive news coverage, as did the Court’s ruling on President Donald Trump’s tax returns. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a celebrity, embraced by a younger generation of Americans.

Public confidence in the Court fluctuated in the 2010s and 2020s. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that only 47 percent of Americans held a favorable view of the Court, with 51 percent expressing an unfavorable opinion. The 2022 leak and subsequent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), marked a shift in Supreme Court media coverage, characterized by increased scrutiny of the justices’ personal conduct, financial disclosures, and relationships with donors. Media coverage has increasingly focused on ethics controversies, political framing, and concerns about the Court’s legitimacy, reflecting a sustained shift rather than a temporary change. Investigations by sources like ProPublica and Politico highlighted undisclosed gifts and potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. Scrutiny of the justices has continued, including criticism of the Court’s self-enforced ethics code and recusals in cases involving financial or publishing ties.

Challenges to News Coverage

Much of the Court’s business is conducted behind the scenes, creating an almost mystical aura that translates into comparatively little media attention on actual cases. One study found that the presidency and the Congress receive substantially more news coverage than the Court. In 1989, for example, the Court handed down full decisions in 144 cases, yet only 24 percent received any television news coverage, and only 11 percent were covered by all three major networks. This drastically changed, however, with the advent of cable news coverage, the internet, and social media.

Several factors make coverage of Court activities particularly challenging. Court activity is inherently episodic, and reporters do not know when the Court will issue specific opinions. However, media representatives must, within a few hours, understand, interpret, and summarize the Court’s decisions and reasoning and suggest the implications of decisions that may have taken months to reach. Legal news is easily misinterpreted; the complexities of language and ideas, combined with journalists’ need for concise and timely reporting, all work against comprehensive and accurate coverage.

Generally, the Court has demonstrated little regard for the media in terms of timing or presentation of decisions. Historically, the press did not receive proofs of opinions, and even then, the Court did not provide full text until opinions had been completely read in the courtroom. A hasty and inaccurate inference made by the Associated Press during the Gold Clause Cases (1935) led to the Associated Press reporting a decision that was the exact opposite of the Court’s intent. As a result, media representatives now receive full text of opinions the moment the justice starts reading from the bench.

In 1965, the Court changed its long-standing practice of reporting decisions only on Mondays. These “Decision Monday” sessions often resulted in the release of up to fifteen decisions within a few hours. The change allowed the Court to announce decisions at any session. A substantial share of decisions is still released late in the term, especially in June.

Unlike other areas of government, the Court generally does not comment on its decisions and cannot engage in public relations activities. There are no briefings, press conferences, or public relations personnel to elaborate on the Court’s decisions; the Court’s public information office simply provides decisions and other data to media representatives without explanations, significant commentary, or background materials. Consequently, interest groups often act as informal press secretaries to the Court, giving their group’s own interpretation of opinions to the media. Justice Clarence Thomas has continued to question the precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), a foundational case for press freedom, raising concerns about potential changes to legal protections for the media. Between 2025 and 2026, conflicts over media access intensified, including a lawsuit by The New York Times against the Pentagon over reporting restrictions, highlighting the continued importance of Supreme Court First Amendment precedents.

The Court’s work is primarily reflected in words, the forte of print journalism. Consequently, only a minority of Court decisions were covered by major television networks in the late 1990s and early 2000s. While major television networks may still only report major news or cases from the Court in the twenty-first century, information about the Court and its rulings can be accessed at any time on internet news sites devoted to the Court’s proceedings. However, in the mid-2020s, the number of print and television reporters who exclusively covered the Court remained small.


Bibliography

Birnbaum, Emily. “Poll: More than Half of Americans Can’t Name a Single Supreme Court Justice.” The Hill, Aug. 2018, thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/403992-poll-more-than-half-of-americans-cant-name-single-supreme-court. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Boston, Joshua, and Christopher N. Krewson. “The Political Court: Newspaper Coverage, Appointment Politics, and Public Support of the United States Supreme Court, 1980–2023.” Political Communication, 2025, pp. 1–21, doi:10.1080/10584609.2025.2467905. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, et al. “The Future of the US Supreme Court: Ethics, Polarization, and Reform.” Journal of Policy History, Cambridge UP, 3 June 2025, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/future-of-the-us-supreme-court-ethics-polarization-and-reform/C3F5DB04D8DAF3B0B02D358E7E2D3830. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Copeland, Joseph. “Favorable Views of Supreme Court Remain Near Historic Low.” Pew Research, 3 Sep. 2025, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/08/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-remain-near-historic-low. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Epstein, Lee, editor. Contemplating Courts. Congressional Quarterly, 1995.

Greenhouse, Linda. “Telling the Court’s Story: Justice and Journalism at the Supreme Court.” Yale Law Journal, Apr. 1996, openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/8953/57_105YaleLJ1537_April1996_.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Hindman, Elizabeth Blanks. Rights vs. Responsibilities: The Supreme Court and the Media. Greenwood Press, 1997.

Klein, Charlotte. “Is the Media Finally Waking Up to a New Kind of Supreme Court Coverage?” Vanity Fair, 17 July 2023, www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/supreme-court-justices-media. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Mangan, Dan, and Kevin Breuninger. “Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, Ending 50 Years of Federal Abortion Rights.” CNBC, 24 June 2022, www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-by-supreme-court-ending-federal-abortion-rights.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Mansoor, Sanya. “New York ‘Times’ Report Details New Justice Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Misconduct Claims.” Time, 15 Sept. 2019, time.com/5677929/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Pengelly, Martin. “New Book Shows Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Once Supported Press Freedom.” The Guardian, 12 Feb. 2025, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/12/clarence-thomas-times-sullivan-precedent-book. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Slotnick, Elliot E. Television and the Supreme Court. Cambridge UP, 1988.

Svirnovskiy, Gregory. “New York Times Sues Pentagon over Press Restrictions.” Politico, 4 Dec. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/12/04/new-york-times-pentagon-press-credentials-00676451. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

More Like ThisRelated Articles

Related Articles (2)

Related Articles (2)