Justices Kagan And Barrett Are The Spokeswomen SCOTUS Needs Right Now

Dealing with divas on a law school faculty and raising seven children are apparently great training for interacting with members of Congress.

(image generated with ChatGPT)

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.

Portions of this article originally appeared on Bloomberg Law, part of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc. (800-372-1033), and are reproduced here with permission. The footnotes contain material that didn’t appear in my Bloomberg Law column—a form of bonus content for Original Jurisdiction subscribers.

---

The U.S. Supreme Court has an image problem. Last summer, the Court’s approval rating dipped below 40% for the first time. Since then, it has climbed slightly, to 42%—but it’s still well below the 60% or so that was typical in the early 2000s.¹

There’s a big partisan gap in the Court’s approval rating. Democrats are especially unhappy with the Court—and some of their candidates are even campaigning on the issue.

It’s possible, however, that the Court’s unpopularity is partly—or even primarily—an optics problem. According to Professors Jack Goldsmith and Will Baude, who aren’t shy about criticizing President Donald Trump, the Court—including its three Trump appointees—has demonstrated some amount of independence from the Trump administration. Noting how the justices ruled against Trump in major cases involving tariffs, birthright citizenship, and the Federal Reserve, Goldsmith dubbed the institution the “powerful, resilient, independent Supreme Court.”

So what can the Court do to address its image problem? With all due respect to Chief Justice John Roberts—who usually assumes the role of statesman and spokesperson, especially in his year-end reports on the federal judiciary—the Court needs new “faces” for its “brand.”

Who might replace Chief Justice Roberts as the Court’s principal communicator? I hereby nominate Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett.²

Last Tuesday, Justices Kagan and Barrett testified before panels of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. It was the first appearance by Supreme Court justices before Congress in seven years. But given that the two justices hit it out of the park, hopefully such testimony will become an annual tradition, as it used to be.

The official reason for the justices’ appearance was to explain and advocate for the Court’s $228 million budget request, including $14.6 million for hiring additional agents to protect the justices amid growing threats aimed at the judiciary. But the lawmakers ventured beyond the topic at hand, posing questions about controversial topics such as the Court’s emergency docket, public reputation, and ethics code—which Justices Kagan and Barrett answered with alacrity and adroitness.

Both the House and Senate hearings got off on the right foot when Justice Kagan opened with a heartfelt tribute to the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who died unexpectedly over the preceding weekend. That set a personal tone for the proceedings—a helpful reminder that the subject of security for the justices involves the safety of real people and their families.

It was reinforced when Justice Barrett, early in her testimony, recounted a recent swatting incident at her home, as well as having to explain the bulletproof vest she received at work to her 12-year-old son. “I didn’t expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one,” she said.

---

Burford Capital helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a portfolio of over $7 billion and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost or risk or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com.

---

The justices presented a unified front on security. But they parted ways on other topics in their testimony, including whether the Supreme Court’s code of conduct should have an enforcement mechanism. Justice Kagan reiterated her support for having the chief justice appoint a committee of lower-court judges to enforce the code; Justice Barrett described her own position as “less certain,” in light of the complexities involved.

But even when they disagreed, the justices did so in a constructive and collegial fashion. As Justice Barrett said near the end of her House testimony, “We work hard to disagree well, when we disagree—and we agree a lot of the time. And I think that kind of constructive engagement—not just throwing your hands up and saying, ‘I’m not going to deal with people with whom I disagree’—is what we need to move forward.”

And you know what else would be helpful moving forward? More regular congressional testimony from members of the Supreme Court.

Because justices hadn’t appeared before Congress since 2019, the prospect of their doing so this year was “treated as something of a novelty,” as Professor Steve Vladeck wrote. “But for most of the Supreme Court’s modern history, it was anything but,” he explained—with justices “regularly trekk[ing] across First Street to testify before Congress” on a wide range of subjects.

That was a good thing, in Vladeck’s view—and mine—because it “created a setting in which justices could be asked difficult questions,” showing their “willingness to engage with the political branches on terms beyond the court’s own choosing.” By contrast, when the justices shun appearing before Congress, it does a disservice to our democracy, which requires healthy engagement between the three branches of government.

If the Court does decide to send its members to Capitol Hill more regularly, as it did on an annual basis from 1960 through 2011, it should stick with Justices Kagan and Barrett.³ Their appearance last week demonstrated that they are superb ambassadors for the Court—especially as a team.⁴

First, as former professors, they excel at explaining the Court’s complex work, including to people who might not have much legal knowledge—with legislators and journalists replacing 1Ls as the audience. Second, they’re funny and charming, blessed with high EQ, people skills, and patience—perhaps honed while serving as dean of Harvard Law School (Kagan) or parenting seven children (Barrett).

Third, because they come from opposite wings of the Court—Justice Kagan was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2010, while Justice Barrett was appointed by President Trump in 2020—they can appeal to both sides of the aisle when testifying before Congress. They can show, as they did on Tuesday, that it’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable (and it probably helps that they sit at the ideological center of the Court).

[UPDATE (7/22/2026, 12:02 p.m.): On this point, Professor Josh Blackman raised an interesting possibility at The Volokh Conspiracy: Justice Kagan wearing red and Justice Barrett wearing blue—the traditional colors of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively—“was a subliminal attempt at bipartisanship.” I wouldn’t be surprised if the justices coordinated sartorially; they did sport matching handbags, after all.]

Separation-of-powers concerns could arise if Supreme Court justices, while “singing for their supper” on Capitol Hill, wind up pandering to legislators or opining on substantive legal issues. But Justices Kagan and Barrett came nowhere close to that in their testimony—and they are, as two of the most judicious of the justices, especially well situated to avoid impropriety.

Yes, the separation of powers is critically important, and so is judicial independence. But judicial independence isn’t the same as judicial isolation. When the justices emerge from their marble palace to engage with the American people and their elected representatives, good things can happen.

1. A more recent Washington Post/Ipsos poll, discussed in The Post (gift link), found that 55% of Americans disapprove of the Court’s performance, while 41% approve.

2. One issue with Chief Justice Roberts is that he rarely speaks in public—and doesn’t appear eager to do so. He has a certain reserve, which sometimes comes across as standoffishness or unapproachability. I’ve described him as “sphinx-like”; Professor Richard Re, a former Supreme Court clerk, has referred to the chief justice’s “impassivity.”

For a long time, this was a feature and not a bug: Chief Justice Roberts’s impassivity buttressed his institutionalist approach to leading the Court, according to Re. But in a more polarized age, trying to stay above the fray doesn’t work as well as a media strategy.

The Court needs a more emotionally accessible ambassador. It needs someone who can explain the Court and its work to the American people in human, relatable terms. It needs someone who is willing to “do the work” of going in front of cameras, giving media interviews, and putting a human face on the Court. It needs Justices Kagan and Barrett.

3. We can also see why Justices Kagan and Barrett are excellent spokespersons by process of elimination. Let’s consider their colleagues.

As discussed earlier, Chief Justice Roberts is a bit too reserved to be a great representative for the Court (especially for purposes of televised proceedings). The same could be said for the introverted Justice Samuel Alito—although he did join Justice Kagan on Capitol Hill in March 2019, the last time justices testified about the SCOTUS budget—and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who can come across as supercilious at times. Justice Clarence Thomas is very personable, as is Justice Brett Kavanaugh—but the charges leveled against them that made their confirmation hearings so contentious make them more polarizing presenters. (Both justices deny the charges.)

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson are warm and charming. But as an analysis by Dr. Adam Feldman for SCOTUSblog showed—or really confirmed, for those of us who follow the Court closely—they’re significantly more liberal than Justice Kagan and, as such, far more controversial among conservatives. So while I think either could testify alongside Justice Barrett if Justice Kagan were unavailable for some reason, I continue to think the Kagan-Barrett tag team is the way to go.

4. On Advisory Opinions, Sarah Isgur and David French similarly raved about the Kagan-Barrett testimony. French also described them as ideal “ambassadors” for the Court, while Isgur referred to them as SCOTUS “mascots” (perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek).

For additional reactions to the justices’ appearance on Capitol Hill, see Suzanne Monyak’s write-up for Bloomberg Law (quoting Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution, and Professors Carolyn Shapiro and Xiao Wang).

---

Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below.