Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks to the 2025 Supreme Court Fellows Program, Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., U.S. Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab

Summary Justices report income from books, teaching positions

Court adopted its first code of conduct in 2023

WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a book advance of more than $2 million for her bestselling memoir, and other justices reported lucrative law school teaching positions in annual financial disclosure forms released on Tuesday.

Eight of the nine justices disclosed their 2024 outside income and gifts, as required for certain senior government officials. Justice Samuel Alito was granted a 90-day extension, according to the court.

Sign up here.

The filings showed the outside income, gifts and investment transactions for the justices last year. The filings are closely watched as the justices in recent years have come under scrutiny over ethics questions following revelations that some of them failed to report luxury trips, including on private jets, and real estate transactions.

As in recent years, the disclosures showed the lucrative nature of book publishing for members of the nation’s highest judicial body.

Jackson said she received a $2,068,750 book advance last year from Penguin Random House for her memoir “Lovely One.” That comes after a previously reported 2023 advance of $893,750 for the book chronicling her ascent as the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

She also reported being reimbursed by her publisher last year for more than a dozen book events across the country beginning in August when her memoir hit bookshelves.

Justice Neil Gorsuch reported book royalty income of more than $250,000, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor reported nearly $74,000 in royalties, as well as a $60,000 advance for a new children’s book, set for release in September.

Some of the justices reported income from law school teaching roles.

Gorsuch reported an income of $30,379 from George Mason University for teaching a roughly two-week course in July 2024 in Porto, Portugal. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett each received $31,815 from the University of Notre Dame Law School, with Kavanaugh having a teaching stint in October 2024 and Barrett having one in August 2024, according to their filings.

Chief Justice John Roberts co-taught a two-week course in Galway, Ireland in July 2024 for New England Law, a private Boston-based law school, but his compensation was not reported in his 2024 disclosure because he was paid in February 2025.

Just like last year, Alito was granted a 90-day extension. His disclosure last year reported receiving concert tickets in 2023 worth $900 from Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, a German aristocrat.

The justices in 2023 adopted their first code of conduct governing their ethical behavior following revelations of undisclosed luxury trips and hobnobbing with wealthy benefactors.

Critics and some congressional Democrats have said the ethics code does not go far enough to promote transparency, continuing to leave decisions to recuse from cases to the justices themselves and providing no mechanism of enforcement.

Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

The U.S. Supreme Court’s annual financial disclosures unveiled sizeable outside incomes for its justices, including million-dollar literary deals and profitable teaching roles. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson notably received a $2 million advance from Penguin Random House for her memoir “Lovely One.” This recent report follows a previous $893,750 book advance in 2023.

Other notable earnings included Justice Neil Gorsuch’s $250,000 book royalties and a $30,379 teaching compensation from George Mason University. Justice Sonia Sotomayor earned $74,000 in book royalties and a $60,000 advance for a children’s book, while Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett both pocketed $31,815 from teaching at Notre Dame Law School.

The Supreme Court justices have come under close ethical scrutiny, especially regarding transparency in luxury gifts and travels. In 2023, they adopted an ethics code, but critics argue it lacks enforcement mechanisms, placing the onus on justices to self-regulate. Justice Samuel Alito was again granted a filing extension as transparency debates continue within and outside the court.

(With inputs from agencies.)

Washington CNN —

Three Supreme Court justices on Tuesday reported hefty earnings from books they’ve recently published, a glimpse into the lucrative world of authorship that provides members of the bench with additional income.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to sit on the high court, reported receiving just over $2 million from Penguin Random House for a memoir she published last year. The appointee of former President Joe Biden, who joined the court in 2022, has previously reported nearly $900,000 in earnings for the book.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, another member of the court’s liberal wing, and Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Donald Trump, each reported six-figure totals for 2024 for books they’ve authored.

The income the justices made for their off-bench writings emerged in the annual financial disclosure forms that require members of the judiciary to publicly disclose their personal financial interests over the past year and detail income, investments, gifts and spousal salaries.

The reports have been closely watched for years, but especially so recently given the focus on ethics at the Supreme Court and questions about outside travel and private jet flights. This year, most of the justices did not note reportable gifts and much of the travel appeared to be limited to lectures at law schools and book promotions across the country.

But there were eye-popping figures on book income.

In this annual report, Jackson reported the greatest sum. Her memoir, “Lovely One,” became a New York Times bestseller last year and she took part in an extended promotional tour.

Sotomayor, who has long been among the court’s most prolific authors since joining the bench in 2009, reported nearly $134,000 in book-related income last year. That includes a $60,000 in advance income for a children’s book, “Just Shine!” set to publish later this year.

Gorsuch, meanwhile, reported receiving a significant sum from publishers last year in “royalty income” – a little over $250,000 in total. That’s the same amount that he noted on his report last year. Gorsuch published a book last summer titled “Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law,” in which he railed against government regulations.

Supreme Court justices, who earn more than $300,000 a year, are barred from receiving more than about $30,000 in outside income annually. But book revenue is exempt from that policy, creating an incentive for the nine to put pen to paper beyond their opinions.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked for additional time to file his annual report, as has been his practice over the years.

Justices on the move

As in past years, several of the justices reported international travel. Sotomayor’s itinerary was perhaps most notable, logging trips to Switzerland, Panama and Austria.

The court’s senior liberal took part in a question-and-answer session with judges in Panama City in early 2024, paid for a local university. Weeks later, she traveled to Hawaii to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the law school at the University of Hawaii.

In July, Sotomayor traveled to Vienna to take part in a “law leadership conference,” organized by New York University.

Gorsuch listed trips to Germany and Portugal in July for “educational” programs, paid for by the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law and by George Mason University, respectively.

Chief Justice John Roberts taught a course on the Supreme Court in Galway, Ireland, in July, paid for by New England Law.

But most of the justices reported no international travel, and a limited number of domestic trips. Several of the court’s conservatives, including Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, took part in events at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett also traveled to Malibu, California, for a lecture organized by Pepperdine University.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who in recent years has been the focus of much of the criticism from ethics watchdogs, reported no trips or gifts. Thomas disclosed a life insurance policy he said was inadvertently omitted from prior reports. The policy, he said, was originally purchased in 2001 and that “confusion arose on whether the policy needed to be disclosed.”

The declaration of assets by a majority of the apex court judges is commendable, but it actually dates back to a process called the Bangalore Declaration. In 2001, a group of senior judges and jurists from different countries convened under the umbrella of the United Nations. They produced what came to be known as the Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct—an effort to create a universally acceptable standard of judicial ethics around the world

By Dilip Bobb

Last week’s declaration of assets by 21 of the 33 Supreme Court justices on the apex court’s website follows the decision of the full court to make assets public. The move comes in response to renewed scrutiny over the wealth of constitutional court judges following the alleged discovery of a large sum of cash at the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.

Justice Gavai, who will take over as the chief justice on May 14, has movable assets, including gold ornaments and jewellery worth Rs 5.25 lakh, his spouse has jewellery worth Rs 29.7 lakh and a cash deposit of Rs 61,320.

Justice Surya Kant, who will become the chief justice of India on November 24 this year, has a house in Sector 10 in Chandigarh, 13 acres of agricultural land in Panchkula, and a 300 square yard plot in Gurugram, among other immovable properties. He has fixed deposits worth Rs 4.11 crore, gold ornaments worth 100 grams and three valuable watches.

The most affluent among those who have declared their assets is Justice KV Viswanathan. He has investments of over Rs 120 crore and properties in Safdarjung Development Area and Gulmohar Park in Delhi and an apartment in Coimbatore.

Justice Viswanathan has also declared income tax details from the period 2010-11 to 2024-25 of over Rs 91.47 crore. However, that is explained by the fact that he had a lucrative, practice as a senior advocate before being elevated to the Supreme Court in 2023.

The declarations are laudable, but it actually dates back to a process called the Bangalore Declaration. In 2001, a group of senior judges and jurists from different countries convened under the auspices of the United Nations. They produced what came to be known as the Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct (often called the Bangalore Draft). This was an effort to create a universally acceptable statement of judicial ethics principles to guide judges in legal systems around the world. The “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct” are named after the city then called Bangalore, where the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity held its second meeting in 2001. It was at this meeting that the principles were first drafted. The meeting recognized the need for universally acceptable standards of judicial integrity, and the document became known as the “Bangalore Principles”, later endorsed by various judicial forums.

The Judicial Group conducted extensive consultations with judiciaries in over 80 countries, ensuring that the principles were universally applicable. Further refinements of the Bangalore Draft led to the adoption of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct in 2002. These principles were later recognized by various international bodies, including the UN Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council), and provided a template for domestic judicial codes worldwide. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct laid down six core values to be followed by judges in the participating countries. These were: Independence, Impar­tiality, Integrity, Propriety, Equality, Competence and Diligence.

In the Indian context, the current declaration of assets follows a similar resolution in August 2009, when, under then Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, the Supreme Court decided to make judicial asset declarations publicly accessible. This decision was influenced by Karnataka High Court’s Justice Shylendra Kumar, who challenged CJI Balakrishnan’s opposition to public disclosures. However, the process stalled after a controversy arose over a judge listing “daughters’ marriage” as a financial liability, alongside concerns from judges with significant pre-bench legal earnings.

In 2019, a five-judge Supreme Court bench, including Justice Sanjiv Khanna, ruled that the chief justice’s office was a public authority under the RTI Act, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to transparency. Justice Khanna emphasized that judicial independence and openness should coexist, a sentiment later echoed by Justice NV Ramana, who became chief justice in 2021.

In fact, the formal disclosure of assets and liabilities dates back to a Supreme Court resolution on May 7, 1997, which mandated that judges declare their real estate holdings and investments, including those held by spouses or dependents. Initially confidential, these disclosures were made public for the first time in 2009. Now, amid renewed demands for transparency, the practice has been revived, this time with a firm commitment to public accountability.

The latest development comes in the wake of a recommendation made more than a year ago by Parliament’s Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, and Law and Justice, which called for legislation mandating the public disclosure of assets and liabilities by both Supreme Court and High Court judges. In December 2022, BJP MP Sushil Kumar Modi, then chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law, called for mandatory disclosure of assets by judges, similar to the requirements for MPs, MLAs, and all-India service officers. What added the required urgency was the controversy involving Justice Yashwant Varma.

Elsewhere, the US Supreme Court has come under scrutiny recently over its financial disclosures. Financial disclosures for eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices were made public last year, revealing information about a gifted trip to Bali, free concert tickets to see Beyoncé, and nearly $1.6 million in book deals. The annual disclosures come as the court faces mounting pressure over its transparency and accountability measures, particularly concerning po­tential conflicts of interest and ties to affluent donors.

A string of revelations in recent years about some of the justices and undisclosed gifts has only intensified public scrutiny and raised questions about the impartiality of the judiciary. Justices are required to publicly disclose financial information each year to prevent conflicts of interest.

Justice Clarence Thomas of the US Supreme Court acknowledged for the first time that he accepted luxury travel from Republican billionaire Harlan Crow for previously undisclosed trips he had taken in 2019 to Bali and a private all-male club in Northern California. The two trips were at the centre of a ProPublica report last year exposing Thomas’ unreported luxury travel, triggering unprecedented scrutiny over the wealthy benefactors close to the justices and their commitment to ethics rules. The report claimed that Thomas and his wife took lavish trips paid for by Crow almost on a yearly basis for over two decades without disclosing them. According to the new disclosure forms, Crow and his wife provided food and one day of hotel lodging during Thomas’ trip to Bali in July 2019, and later paid for Thomas’ four-day stay at a private club in Monte Rio, California. Thomas explained in the document that the gifts from the Crows were “inadvertently omitted at the time of filing”.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disclosed that she accepted four free tickets worth $3,711.84 from pop superstar Beyoncé to one of her concerts last year. Jackson, who was confirmed to the US Supreme Court in 2022, also accepted two pieces of art worth $12,500 to display in her chambers. She had the most outside income of any justice last year. Three Justices reported cashing in on book deals last year, totalling nearly $1.6 million in advances and royalties. Jackson reported the highest amount: an eye-popping $8,93,750 advance from Penguin Random House for her upcoming memoir.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is reportedly working on a legal memoir, disclosed that he received $3,40,000 from the Regnery Publishing company. Justice Neil Gorsuch reported $2,50,000 in royalties from Harper­Collins for his upcoming book. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also reported $87,000 in book royalties and was also paid $1,900 for her voice performance in the kids animated show Alma’s Way. The US Supreme Court justices, like other government officials, are only allowed to receive less than about $30,000 in outside income, but book income does not count towards that cap, allowing the justices to enter into lucrative contracts with publishers. In contrast, the UK Supreme Court does not require judges to publicly disclose their assets or financial information.

Not many countries have taken the necessary step towards public disclosure of assets of members of the judiciary. Apart from Argentina, countries like the United States, Latvia, Mongolia and South Korea have laid down legal procedures for public disclosure of judges’ assets. South Africa has amended its Judicial Service Commission Act to provide for filing and public disclosure of judges’ assets. In countries like Philippines and Russia there are some restrictions about access to asset disclosures filed by the judiciary. Other counties like Ghana, Cameroon, Kenya and Thailand require judges to declare their assets, but these declarations are not accessible to the public.

In a recent publication of the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative of the World Bank and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), new data suggests that in more than half of the 161 countries covered by the study, judges and prosecutors are required to disclose their income, assets and other relevant interests and activities. In the case of Supreme Court justices this applies in almost 60 per cent of countries.

In 2016, the first study commission of the International Association of Judges on Measures to Promote Integrity and Combat Corruption within the Judiciary endorsed “the practice of declaring conflicts of interest and the avoidance or declaration by judges of any affiliation with public causes which might engender a perceived or actual conflict”. It further specifically acknowledged the existence of both public and non-public registers of a judge’s assets and income in a significant number of countries and agreed that “it would be a good measure to prevent corruption”.

The Global Judicial Integrity Network, an initiative about to be launched by UNODC with the financial support of the State of Qatar, will provide a unique platform for judges around the globe to exchange good practices, support and advise each other and to develop tools and materials aimed to guide judiciaries in their efforts to strengthen judicial integrity and preventing corruption in the justice system.

The bedrock of judicial integrity remains the Bangalore code of Judicial Conduct. Resolution 23 of the United Nations’ Social and Economic Council promotes implementation of the Bangalore Principles by the judiciaries of all member states. In fact, the latest country to adopt judicial asset declaration by its Supreme Court justices is the Philippines which adopted the Bangalore Principles, adapting them to Philippine constitutional, legal, and cultural contexts. Bangalore, now Bengaluru, is known as India’s IT hub, but not many remember its contribution to judicial integrity.

—The writer is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal magazine

Fix the Court sued the U.S. Department of State in federal court today over an unfulfilled Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on Supreme Court justices’ international travel.

FTC executive director Gabe Roth submitted a FOIA on Feb. 22, 2023, requesting “documents, emails and reports concerning the security personnel staffing of [the] justices that was provided by Bureau of Diplomatic Security personnel — or by other[s] employed or contracted by the U.S. Department of State — when the justices traveled internationally between Jan. 1, 2018, and Feb. 22, 2023.”

Last year, on Nov. 27, Roth sent a follow-up FOIA to State seeking the same information but extending the covered period to that date. This suit, filed in the D.C. District this morning and assigned to Judge Dabney Friedrich, covers documents for the entire time frame, i.e., Jan. 1, 2018, to Nov. 27, 2024.

“The justices, and a few in particular, are notorious for leaving information critical for oversight off their annual disclosures,” FTC’s Roth said. “By filing this lawsuit, we hope to gain a more complete picture of when and where the justices have traveled abroad in the last few years and better understand the types of perks they receive when they leave the country.”

According to publicly available records, the justices have made visits outside the U.S. at least 53 times during the period covered by FTC’s FOIA (includes retired justices; doesn’t include trips made by the individuals listed below before they were confirmed to SCOTUS):

— Roberts (2): Canada, 2023; Ireland, 2024

— Thomas (1): Indonesia, 2019

— Alito (4): Italy and Switzerland, 2018; Italy, 2022; Germany, 2023

— Sotomayor (7): Portugal, 2019; U.K. (Scotland), 2022; Canada, 2023; Panama, Spain, Switzerland and Austria, 2024

— Kagan (5): Canada, 2018; U.K. (England), 2019; Iceland, 2021; Canada, 2022; Canada, 2023

— Gorsuch (7): Italy, 2018; U.K. (England) and Italy, 2019; Iceland, 2021; Italy, 2022; Portugal, 2023; Portugal, 2024

— Kavanaugh (3): U.K. (England), 2019; Italy, 2022; U.K. (England), 2023

— Barrett (2): Italy, 2022; U.K. (England), 2023

— Jackson: None

— Kennedy (2): Austria, 2018; Austria, 2019

— Ginsburg (5): Italy, Israel and Jordan, 2018; Sweden and Portugal, 2019

— Breyer (15): St. Kitts & Nevis, Canada, Ireland, Spain and France, 2018; France, U.K. (England) and Canada, 2019; France (twice) and Switzerland, 2022; Israel, Canada and U.K. (England), 2023; France, 2024

Though the justices’ security arrangements have changed a bit since the Dobbs leak in May 2022, in general, when the justices travel domestically, they are protected by deputies from the Supreme Court Police Department (in and around D.C., though post-leak that radius has expanded) and the U.S. Marshals Service (elsewhere in the U.S., though Roberts, Thomas and Kagan have not traveled with deputy Marshals in several years).

When they travel abroad, the justices may receive coverage from the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, whose Diplomatic Security Service comprises law enforcement officers stationed around the globe.

This is the fourth lawsuit FTC has filed in federal court over the justices’ travel records; the first three followed FOIA requests to the U.S. Marshals Service.

The first FTC FOIA request that led to a lawsuit followed Justice Scalia’s death in 2016 and sought information about USMS policies for providing security to the justices, as well as details about the justices’ summer 2015 travel plus Scalia’s ultimate trip to Texas. The second one sought information about the justices’ 2016 and 2017 travel recorded in the Marshals’ Requests for Special Assignment Resources, which at the time were filed whenever deputy Marshals accompanied a justice on a trip. Documents that FTC received as a result of the two suits are posted here.

The third sought information for the justices’ travel from Jan. 1, 2018, to Sept. 30, 2022. Documents that FTC received as a result of the 2023 suit are linked to here.

A fourth FTC FOIA request covered the justices’ travel from Oct. 1, 2022, to Sept. 30, 2024, and was filed last September. The documents DOJ sent in response, which FTC received in November and have been posted here and here, no lawsuit needed, did not yield any significant information that wasn’t already publicly available.

Additional Sunshine Week-related actions by FTC and its allies will take place in the coming days or possibly next week since Congress is not currently in session.

The docket for today’s lawsuit, Fix the Court v. Department of State, 25-767 in D.D.C., has already been posted for free, no PACER needed, in Free Law Project’s CourtListener system, which is an indispensable resource, especially this year.