The Supreme Court justices’ annual financial disclosures were released Tuesday, revealing millions of dollars in combined book payments to the justices in 2024.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took in the most, disclosing a nearly $2.07 million book advance from Penguin Random House, which published her memoir, “Lovely One,” in September. Jackson received nearly $894,000 the year prior.
Jackson has been on a nationwide book tour between court sessions. She reported her publisher reimbursing her for more than a dozen tour stops between the release and Dec. 31. The tour has continued into 2025.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, meanwhile, reported just $259.95 in royalties for his 2009 book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” published by Princeton University Press. That book has returned similar payouts for the last several years.
His 2024 book “Over Ruled,” published by HarperCollins, brought in $250,000 in royalties. He reported receiving the same amount from the publisher in 2021 and 2023.
And Justice Sonia Sotomayor received a $60,000 advance and nearly $74,000 in royalties from Penguin Random House, which has published her series of children’s books. Earlier this year, the company announced it was publishing Sotomayor’s newest book, “Just Shine,” in September.
Two retired justices also reported book payments. Retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who published a book last year defending his legal pragmatism, reported more than $130,000, while retired Justice Anthony Kennedy received nearly $32,000.
Kennedy is one of three justices with known book projects in the works:
- He was slated to release a two-volume memoir last year. It’s now only one volume, set for release on Oct. 14 with Simon & Schuster.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett will publish a book with Penguin Random House on Sept. 9. She disclosed $425,000 in book royalties in 2021, but her deal reportedly includes an advance totaling $2 million.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh is planning a legal memoir with the conservative Center Street imprint, Axios reported last year, and the justice received $340,000 in royalties in 2022. Center Street did not return a request for comment on the project.
The justices’ book earnings and their tours have come under greater scrutiny in recent years, fueled by a 2023 Associated Press investigation detailing how Sotomayor’s staff pushed colleges and a library to purchase copies of her book when she visited.
Federal law places a roughly $33,000 cap on the justices’ outside income — each of the three Trump-appointed justices brought in just under that amount from teaching engagements last year — but the cap notably does not apply to book royalties.
The justices’ many books have had ramifications outside their earnings, too.
Last month, five justices’ recusals forced the court to decline an appeal in a copyright lawsuit against author Ta-Nehisi Coates. That was likely because four of the five justices who recused — Jackson, Gorsuch, Sotomayor and Barrett — have book deals with Penguin Random House, whose parent company Bertelsmann is a party in the case. (If it sounds familiar, that’s because we wrote about it in The Gavel.)
The book earnings stood out as most interesting in financial disclosures that were otherwise par for the course.
While last year’s disclosures revealed new rental properties, newly reported trips and even Beyoncé tickets for Jackson — from Beyoncé — this year’s disclosures had few revelations.
It could signal that the justices have heeded calls to rein in gifts and travel, especially without disclosing it in their annual financial reports. Or, it could just mean the justices had a rather boring year.
And we still don’t have Justice Samuel Alito’s disclosure, as he received a 90-day extension, just like he requested in previous years.
Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill’s weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee (elee@thehill.com) and Zach Schonfeld (zschonfeld@thehill.com). Email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48).
In Focus
E. Jean Carroll’s runway
For E. Jean Carroll, the courtroom where she took President Trump to trial was one of “New York’s great runways.”
In her memoir released Tuesday, “Not My Type,” Carroll puts fashion at the crux of her chronicle of the two civil jury trials that unfolded in the high-ceilinged, navy-blue-carpeted courtroom where she won nearly $100 million in damages plus interest.
Despite no cameras being allowed, Carroll said she took extensive efforts to craft her “look” for the New Yorkers who would decide whether her claims that Trump sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s were credible.
The goal? Convince them that Carroll, now 81, was attractive enough to be Trump’s target.
“Whenever I am thinking about the trial and worrying that I am too concerned about how I look, I remember that Trump’s defense is ‘She’s not my type,’ and how I look is the very center of the case,” Carroll wrote.
Carroll detailed spending more than $600 a day on hair and makeup, bringing on a personal stylist to create her trial outfits and even scheduling plastic surgery before trial only to call it off a couple days beforehand.
And her legal team decided that Carroll should cut her hair in a bob, like the one she wore at the time of the assault, after three mock juries agreed something sexual happened in the Bergdorf Goodman dressing room between her and Trump — but believed Carroll had wanted it.
“We demonstrate that when you go to court, forget the facelift, do the hair and makeup,” Carroll wrote.
Her chaotic, often-amusing account details the fashion of the trials’ other characters, too, particularly that of Alina Habba, one of Trump’s personal attorneys who now serves as New Jersey’s interim U.S. attorney.
Carroll repeatedly emphasizes Habba wore a ring with a diamond as big as a Ritz cracker — Chapter 1 is titled, “The Diamond as Big as the Ritz” — and even complimented the attorney’s blue-pantsuit look at the second trial’s closing arguments. Carroll always included “Esq.” after writing Habba’s name as an apparent pejorative dig at her legal acumen.
“Alina Habba, Esq. looks so pretty with her dark hair pulled into a low bun—the humble-brag of a beauty!” Carroll wrote.
(We can confirm Habba was quite proud of that outfit. In the courtroom that day, she told Zach she had saved the outfit for closings, but she had struggled earlier in the week to come up with new looks since a COVID-19 outbreak meant the trial was dragging on longer than expected.)
Carroll also details in the book what she’ll do with the money she won. Pledging to make Trump “very, very mad,” she says she’ll be giving most of it to things he “despises,” like climate and abortion groups.
With the humor and wit Carroll’s readers have come to expect from the former magazine writer, her memoir grapples with the complicated question that loomed over her case: what does it take to be believed as a woman alleging assault, especially when the accused perpetrator is as powerful as Carroll’s?
Trump denies Carroll’s account.
The release of her book comes as her cases heat up again.
Last week, the full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s verdict from Carroll’s first trial. Trump’s team vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court next.
Meanwhile, a 2nd Circuit panel is expected to rule in the next week on whether Trump’s Justice Department can step in for him in the second case, which would mean the federal government, not Trump, would pay the $83.3 million Carroll won.
The panel is expected to rule in the lead-up to Tuesday’s oral arguments on Trump’s appeal of the verdict.
Trump mum on clemency as Menendez reports to prison
Former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) reported to prison Tuesday to begin an 11-year sentence for trading his political clout for lavish bribes, acting as a foreign agent of Egypt and a flurry of other crimes of corruption.
Until today, the senator had one last hope to avoid prison: a pardon from Trump.
Despite the once-powerful Democrat’s apparent overtures to gain the president’s sympathy, Trump has remained mum.
Menendez made a final public appeal last week. In a winding post to X, now pinned to his profile, he assessed “how weaponization works” and portrayed himself and Trump as two comrades unfairly targeted by crooked prosecutors bent on making a name for themselves.
Weeks earlier, the New Jersey Democrat suggested that his opposition to former President Obama’s foreign policy efforts resulted in the federal corruption charges filed against him 2015, which were ultimately dropped after a jury failed to reach a verdict.
“So these experiences, as well as those under the Biden administration, where Obama’s influence was still prevalent through his surrogates, lead me to understand why President Trump believes the Justice Department was Weaponized against him and his supporters,” Menendez wrote, slamming the two past presidents to come from his political party.
And after a judge handed down his sentence, Menendez uttered four words to reporters that most other Democrats would not: “President Trump was right.”
“This process is political, and it’s corrupted to the core,” Menendez said in January, just days after Trump had returned to the White House. “I hope President Trump cleans up the cesspool and restores the integrity to the system.”
Yet, nothing from Trump, who has not openly ruled out clemency for the ex-senator but also has not endorsed it.
Menendez’s apparent efforts to earn the president’s favor weren’t without merit. Other Democrats have made the same bid — and successfully.
Such efforts paid off for New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D), whose criminal case was dismissed after Trump’s Justice Department made the request to a judge following months where the mayor seemed to be cozying up to the president.
Plus, at the end of his first term, Trump commuted the sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), who was convicted of an array of corruption charges — including attempted extortion of a children’s hospital for campaign contributions and trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat after he was elected to the White House in 2008 — and sentenced to 14 years in prison.
In February, Trump took his clemency one step further and pardoned Blagojevich, as well. The former governor has described himself as a “Trump-ocrat.”
But until Trump decides otherwise, Menendez will serve out his sentence at a federal prison in Pennsylvania, less than three hours from his New Jersey home. The Gavel requested comment from his lawyers Tuesday.
Decision Roundup
The court has 21 opinions left to release this term
Mistaken FBI raid lawsuit revived
The Supreme Court unanimously revived an Atlanta family’s lawsuit seeking damages for a botched FBI raid on their home. However, they put off deciding the legal challenge’s ultimate fate.
In 2017, federal agents smashed through Trina Martin’s front door while executing a search warrant for an alleged violent gang member — but they had the wrong address. A flash-bang grenade startled Martin and her boyfriend at the time out of bed as the agents approached them with guns raised. Her 7-year-old son screamed from another room.
She sued over the incident in 2019. But a district court dismissed the suit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld that decision.
The justices sent the case back to the 11th Circuit to reconsider whether the lawsuit, which accuses the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), can move forward.
School disability claims
The Supreme Court unanimously sided with a teenage girl with epilepsy in a ruling that disabled children bringing education discrimination claims do not need to clear a higher legal bar than other plaintiffs suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Minnesota teen Ava Tharpe’s family sued Osseo Area Schools in Minnesota. In the court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that disabled children face “daunting challenges on a daily basis.”
“We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination,” he said.
Combat disability payments
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that military retirees with combat-related disabilities are not time-limited to file claims seeking payment.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the statute establishing the combat-related special compensation program displaces the normal six-year window, siding with Navy retiree Steven Soto.
“Where, as here, the statutory scheme involves a small group of particularly deserving claimants, it is not extraordinary to think that Congress wished to forgo a limitations period,” Thomas wrote.
Order List
IN: Challenge to NJ AG’s subpoena to anti-abortion clinics
The Supreme Court took up two new cases at its recent conference, both of which we’ve highlighted in previous editions.
In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, the court will review a network of anti-abortion clinics’ bid to quash New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s (D) subpoena seeking donor records. Platkin’s office is investigating whether First Choice violated state consumer fraud laws.
Lower federal courts ruled First Choice’s free speech challenge was not ripe because it could be brought in state court, but the group says it creates a “Catch-22” scenario that prevents a federal judge from ever reviewing the subpoena’s constitutionality.
First Choice is represented by the Christian conservative legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The group played a significant role in efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade and regularly notches Supreme Court victories, including recently on behalf of a Christian web designer who wished to refuse making same-sex wedding websites.
“The lower courts have wrongly held that First Choice is relegated to state court to present its constitutional claims. We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff,” ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a statement.
Platkin said First Choice has refused to answer questions about its operations for years, defending the subpoena as lawful but stressing the Supreme Court is only considering whether the clinics’ have sued prematurely.
“Non-profits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our State, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so—as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms,” he said in a statement reacting to the news.
In the second case, Chevron USA. v. Palequemines Parish, Chevron and Exxon Mobil are seeking to move a lawsuit filed by Louisiana parishes to federal court. The parishes won $745 million in state court earlier this year by holding the companies liable for production of crude oil along the Louisiana coast dating back decades, but the companies say the federal officer removal statute gives them the right to move the case.
OUT: Copyright suit against Ed Sheeran
The Supreme Court declined to revive a lawsuit against Ed Sheeran that accused the pop star of unlawfully emulating the late Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On” when Sheeran wrote his hit “Thinking Out Loud.”
In Structured Asset Sales v. Sheeran, the court left intact a lower ruling finding that Sheeran isn’t liable because Gaye’s earlier tune was too mainstream to be legally protected.
Petition Pile
Petitions to take up cases that the justices are keeping a close eye on.
- Damages for religious law violation: This appears likely to be taken up. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) allows people to seek damages from federal officials in their individual capacities. Now, in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety and Tripathy v. McKoy, the justices are being asked to do the same for RFRA’s sister statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The Supreme Court asked the federal government for its views, and it told the justices to take up Landor. The court tends to go with the government’s recommendation, so keep an eye on this one.
- Bivens claims: In 1971, the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics ruled that individuals can sue government officials for damages for violating the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. The court has expanded Bivens claims only twice — to also cover Fifth Amendment due process and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference lawsuits — but has cautioned against doing so in other contexts. But in Goldey v. Fields, a lower court said inmate Andrew Fields could seek damages over claims that corrections officers used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they allegedly physically abused him while restrained. The associate warden is appealing to the high court. The Justice Department is backing him and has urged the justices to immediately reverse the lower court without even holding oral arguments.
Sidebar
Catch-up
- Minnesota suspect arrested: Authorities arrested 57-year-old Vance Boelter over shooting two Minnesota Democratic lawmakers and their spouses early Saturday morning, that left two dead and two injured. Boelter faces state murder charges, and federal authorities unveiled a complaint on Monday bringing federal murder and stalking charges against him.
- National Guard ruling whiplash: A federal judge on Thursday ordered President Trump to return control of the National Guard to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). An appeals court lifted the ruling.
- Police officers sue over Jan. 6 plaque: Two police officers who fended off rioters on Jan. 6, 2021, filed a lawsuit Thursday seeking to compel the installation of a plaque at the Capitol honoring law enforcement.
- CPSC firings ruled illegal: A federal judge ruled Trump’s firings of three Democratic commissioners at the Consumer Product Safety Commission was illegal, enabling them to return to their posts.
- DOJ sues New York: The Justice Department sued New York over its law that seeks to protect migrants from being arrested while at or traveling to state court appearances.
In other news
- Back to Texas: Aaron Reitz, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy and a familiar face in Texas conservative legal circles, announced he is running for Texas attorney general. Reitz is the second candidate to enter the race to replace Ken Paxton, who has launched a primary challenge to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
- Vance threatens Vance: Federal prosecutors in Michigan last week unsealed an indictment against James Donald Vance Jr. for allegedly threatening the vice president, James David Vance, in an April Bluesky post. The man pleaded not guilty.
- Settlement watch: Court documents show CBS and Trump agreed to a two-week delay of upcoming deadlines in the president’s lawsuit against the network as settlement talks remain active. Paramount, CBS’s parent company, has offered $15 million, but Trump’s team wants more than $25 million and an apology, according to The Wall Street Journal.
On the Docket
Don’t be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here’s what we’re watching for now:
Today:
- The Supreme Court will announce opinions.
- A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge by 20 Democratic state attorneys general to the Trump administration’s directive that Department of Transportation funding would be conditioned on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
- A federal judge in California is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit challenging Trump’s order gutting collective bargaining for federal workers.
- A Washington, D.C., federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) takeover of the U.S. African Development Foundation.
Thursday:
- Courts are closed for Juneteenth.
Friday:
- The Supreme Court will announce opinions.
- A federal judge in San Francsico will hold a hearing on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) request for a preliminary injunction returning control of the National Guard to him. The judge issued a temporary restraining order last week, but it was halted by the appeals court.
Monday:
- The Supreme Court will announce orders.
Tuesday:
- A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Trump’s appeal of Carroll’s first defamation lawsuit against him.
What we’re reading
- The New York Times’s Jodi Kantor: How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left
- The Sacramento Bee’s Stephen Hobbs and Sharon Bernstein: Guards bar volunteers, reporters from Sacramento immigration court hearings
- NPR’s Ximena Bustillo: ICE’s novel strategy allows for more arrests from inside immigration courts
- Best Lawyers’s Bryan Driscoll: Why Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk Want to ‘Delete All IP Law’
- E&E News’s Jean Chemnick, Niina H. Farah and Lesley Clark: The legal pitfalls of Zeldin’s climate rule rollback