Article: Barrett’s Big Book Deal Called Bad Optics for Supreme Court

B;oomberg write

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s reported $2 million book deal is drawing criticism from legal experts who say its size and timing create bad optics for a court that is already in the political crosshairs.

The advance, first reported by Politico, would be the largest ever for a Supreme Court justice, topping the $1.5 million Justice Clarence Thomas received for his 2007 memoir and the $1.175 million advance Justice Sonia Sotomayor got for hers, published in 2013.

Both books became best-sellers.

This book would emerge unusually soon for a justice who joined the court only six months ago and has just two majority opinions to her name. Barrett, 49, won Senate confirmation to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg right before the election after a rushed and bitter fight. The third and final nominee of President Donald Trump, she didn’t receive any Democratic support.

Amy Coney Barrett
Photographer: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Bloomberg

Read More: Barrett Rejects Sierra Club in First Opinion for Supreme Court

Although federal law doesn’t preclude judges from being paid for writing books, such a large advance would raise appearance issues, says Charles Geyh, who specializes in judicial ethics as a professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law.

“Judge Barrett may be confident that the book project will not detract from her focus on her judicial duties, and she may well be right,” Geyh said in an email. “But from the perspective of the average American who is grinding out a living at 40k a year, the optics of a judge — who is paid $250,000 in tax dollars to do the people’s business as a justice — moonlighting for $2 million on a book deal, are problematic.”

Read full article  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/barretts-big-book-deal-called-bad-optics-for-supreme-court