A sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice pulled back the curtain this week on the elaborate internal vetting process she undergoes just to accept a dinner invitation, revealing details rarely discussed in public forums.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sat down Wednesday with Michelle Obama for the former first lady’s IMO podcast, a program that has largely steered clear of sitting government officials since its debut.
Court staff members actively vet Jackson’s outside activities before she agrees to participate, according to her own account during the conversation.
Obama opened the exchange by probing how Jackson manages the flow of information reaching her. “You also have to watch your exposure to things so that there isn’t a bias,” Obama said.
Obama pressed further, asking what factors Jackson weighs “in terms of reading the paper, and listening to the news,” and how the justice navigates “potential conflicts as you do stay above board.”
Two separate court offices play a role in shielding Jackson from ethical entanglements, she explained in her response.
“There are employees in the court who, in the legal office of the court, in the public information office of the court, who are assisting us in that way,” Jackson said.
Every invitation Jackson receives passes through a formal screening process before she decides whether to accept it.
“When I get invitations to do things, I always have them screened by the legal office, by the public information office,” she said.
That screening exists for one specific reason, according to Jackson. “Just to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts, it’s not a fundraiser,” she said.
Judges operate under a distinct set of constraints compared to other public officials, Jackson noted, and she described taking those constraints seriously.
“There are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that,” Jackson said.
Impartiality sits at the core of her professional obligation, Jackson added. “Our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach,” she said, before describing the process of weighing which opportunities to decline.
“You have to then navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid,” Jackson said. “So there are lots of things that I end up not accepting for that reason.”
Time constraints limit how much news Jackson can actually consume, she acknowledged during the podcast. “News sources, I think, you know, I don’t have a lot of time, unfortunately,” Jackson said.
Traditional outlets remain part of her routine despite those limits. “I do, you know, the normal general media sources are made available,” she said.
Social media presents a unique problem for someone in her position, Jackson explained, describing the platforms as largely unpredictable territory.
“There’s so much social media now. This is a whole different world, and not everything is reliable,” she said.
A stark boundary separates judges from ordinary public discourse, according to Jackson’s closing remark on the subject. “The hardest part for judges is that we really cannot participate,” she said.
Obama offered a wry response to Jackson’s description of her limited media diet. “Probably saving you some brain cells!” Obama said, before circling back to the justice’s core responsibility.
“So we need you focused on your opinion,” Obama told her.
Jackson occupies one of three seats generally identified with the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc, having joined the bench in 2022.
Obama’s own political activity has remained highly visible in recent years, including a heavy campaign push for Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential race and support for other Democratic candidates.
Her podcast has drawn a roster of prominent guests since launching, among them former President Barack Obama, though sitting officials and politicians have made only rare appearances on the show.
Wednesday’s sit-down with Jackson stood out from that pattern, marking one of the few times a sitting justice has discussed the mechanics of judicial ethics screening in a podcast setting.
