This article was written by Margaret McMullan, an author and former professor of creative writing. She lives in Pass Christian, Mississippi. It appeared in the Washington Post. She recalls when she invited Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer to speak at the Mississippi Book Festival, no expenses paid. It was a long shot.
She wrote:
One rainy day in April 2019, my phone buzzed and the caller ID lit up with “Supreme Court.” I stared at the two words for a moment. Was I in trouble?
Then I remembered.
A few months earlier, I’d sent Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor a letter inviting her to speak at the Mississippi Book Festival, which runs every August. Our offer was the same as it had been for other authors: a $250 stipend, a ride to and from the airport and a large, appreciative audience. In addition, we would purchase 1,500 copies of Sotomayor’s books to give to students. Could the justice please travel to Jackson, Miss., to talk to kids for two days? In the hottest time of the year?
Sotomayor’s “Turning Pages,” aimed at children ages 4 to 8, had come out in 2018. In her 2013 memoir suitable for young adults, “My Beloved World,” Sotomayor wrote about reading and the importance of education in her life, as well as her challenges with diabetes. I was sure that both books would resonate with Mississippi students. During our call, Le said the offer was interesting; the justice had never been to Mississippi. I outlined the potential impact Sotomayor would have on students, noting our state’s high poverty rate and its problem with childhood diabetes.
Le said she would get back to me.
And she did, with a few more questions — details about flight connections, book-signing and so on. I said we would be happy to upgrade her flight. Nope, the publisher was handling her flight. I said we’d be happy to upgrade her hotel room. Nope, the justice was fine with a Marriott, plus her security detail was familiar with the layout.
So far, so good.
Subsequent emails and phone conversations were similar. No, Le said, the justice did not need us to provide lunch or dinner. No, she could not accept the $250 stipend.
Did Le urge me to buy more books? No. She did ask whether we wanted any of the copies of “My Beloved World” to be in Spanish. In fact, we did, and I hadn’t thought to order them.
When Sotomayor came to Jackson, we had her speaking in the sanctuary at Galloway Memorial United Methodist Church, the church where Eudora Welty once worshiped. Backstage, Sotomayor smiled when she saw my clipboard of questions. She helped me with my tote bag full of books. She then clapped her hands together and said something like, “Okay. Here’s what we’re going to do.”
In addition to our planned onstage interview, she said, she wanted the freedom to go off-script. “They’re children,” I recall her saying. “I want to be sure I get to their questions.”
“Perfect,” I said.
So the justice took a seat in one of the side pews and watched as Dav Pilkey, the author and illustrator of “Captain Underpants,” entertained a delighted audience of about a thousand students, drawing cartoons as he spoke. Then, it was our turn on the stage. I asked my clipboard questions and Sotomayor answered. Afterward, she got up and spoke from the heart, walking up and down the aisles.
In answer to the students’ questions, she told them about growing up in Puerto Rico, eating mangoes off the tree, going away to college for the first time and working in a male-dominated court system.
She talked to these kids. She asked them their names, what they liked in school, what they wanted to do with their lives. She hugged them and posed for pictures with them. After she finished, she signed their books and took more pictures.
“My success came about because I read,” she told them.
The following morning, we did it all over again for another packed sanctuary, with Sotomayor telling even more personal stories about her life and talking about a civics program she and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch work on. She also gave us homework: Go out and make friends with someone who doesn’t look like you.
My only regret is that we ran out of books. I wish we had ordered more.
There very well might be a culture of poor ethical conduct in the Supreme Court, but there is no moral equivalency between justices accepting rides on private jets to vacation with friends who had cases before the court and Sotomayor talking about her books and her life to a crowd of mesmerized young readers.
The standard royalty rate for authors is less than 10 percent of the sales price. I don’t know anything about Sotomayor’s deal with her publishers, but 10 percent would make her cut of the 1,500 books our foundation purchased approximately $2,250 — for which she had to fly to Mississippi and give two presentations. During the hottest month of the year.
Was that a bribe? You be the judge.

https://newrepublic.com/article/174418/sonia-sotomoyors-book-scandal-banal-troubling
Last week the Associated Press, through a laborious examination of open records, revealed that staffers working for the Supreme Court justice had for years pressured public institutions to buy hundreds—and sometimes thousands—of copies of her books. Such mass purchases were often the implicit price of a speaking appearance by Sotomayor at a law school or a library. Partly as a result, Sotomayor has earned $3.7 million from her memoir of growing up in the Bronx and her four children’s books since she joined the court in 2009, including hundreds of thousands in royalties.
All of this is both legal and troubling.
Republicans should have been thrilled at an opportunity to lambaste a leading liberal voice on the Supreme Court—except for the awkward reality that Sotomayor’s missteps are nothing-burgers compared to the flagrant abuse of Supreme Court ethical standards by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In sharp contrast to Sotomayor’s book-based buckraking, the two Republican-appointed justices accepted lavish vacations from conservative billionaires Harlan Crow and Paul Singer and never disclosed them. As The New York Times put it in a recent investigative piece about Thomas’s transgressions, his bonds with megarich right-wingers “have brought him proximity to a lifestyle of unimaginable material privilege.”
Democrats ignored the Sotomayor story, with a few exceptions like Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a crusader for Supreme Court ethics reform. The political logic is sadly predictable: Life is tough enough for the embattled liberal bloc on the Supreme Court without Democrats turning on Sotomayor for her aggressive pursuit of book royalties.
But the Sotomayor story shouldn’t be allowed to vanish down the memory hole, for reasons that go beyond highlighting lax ethical standards for the Supreme Court. In her own way, Sotomayor illustrates a bipartisan reality of life in Washington in the twenty-first century: It is no longer enough to be powerful. You also have to be rich.
Sotomayor is one of the highest-paid public officials in Washington, making $285,400 per year. The salary for a member of Congress, in contrast, is $174,000. Moreover, Supreme Court justices retire at full pay, which is a perk that is granted to virtually no one else in government or the private sector. When her abstemious predecessor David Souter retired from the court in 2009, law professor Orin Knox noted approvingly, “He is not looking to cash in, or write a book, or take another job.” As predicted, the now 83-year-old Souter has been living quietly in New Hampshire.
During her 14 years on the Supreme Court, Sotomayor has made about as much from her books as from her government salary. An unnamed source close to Sotomayor told the AP for its article that the justice’s autobiography, My Beloved World, has not made back even half of its $3.1 million advance. For that reason, the source said piously, Sotomayor “has not and will not profit from sales.” Thanks to her gargantuan advance (an example of the publishing world overpaying for books by political celebrities), Sotomayor has not received royalties from individual or bulk sales of her memoir, though she has received royalty payments from her children’s books.
None of this justifies the way that Sotomayor’s government-paid staff hustled My Beloved World when it was still plausible that the book could earn future royalties. Michigan State University spent $100,000 to buy the memoir, with copies sent to the Supreme Court for autographing, before Sotomayor spoke on campus in 2018. In advance of the justice’s appearance at a 2019 event in Portland, Oregon, promoting her children’s book Just Ask!, an anxious Supreme Court aide wrote to a local library, “Is there a reminder going out that people need to purchase a book at the event or bring a book to get into the signing line? Most of the registrants did not purchase books.”
Along with Sotomayor, Supreme Court justices produce enough books to rival a writer’s colony like Yaddo. It may reflect the languid pace of legal work at the Supreme Court. Or, more likely, it may have something to do with a $30,000 limit on outside earnings—aside from a book-related loophole. Over the years, Thomas has raked in $1 million from his bookish pursuits; Neil Gorsuch has brought in $900,000 since he joined the court in 2017. But that’s chump change compared to Amy Coney Barrett, who signed a $2 million book deal in 2021, shortly after she became Donald Trump’s third anti-abortion Supreme Court justice. The risible topic of Barrett’s still-unpublished literary work: how justices should keep their personal feelings out of their jurisprudence.
The old-time view (courtesy of late-nineteenth-century humorist Finley Peter Dunne) was that the Supreme Court follows the election returns. The contemporary version is that the Supreme Court follows the rest of Washington in its passion to be wealthy rather than merely comfortable. Once there was a trade-off under which many top officials in Washington chose power over money. Now virtually everyone in the upper ranks of government is asking themselves, “If I’m so smart, why aren’t I rich?”
A few emblematic moments from the 1950s illustrate how political life used to play out. In his Pulitzer Prize–winning biography of Harry Truman, David McCullough movingly describes the outgoing president getting on a train without Secret Service protection at Union Station after the 1953 inauguration of Dwight Eisenhower. “He had come home without salary or pension,” McCullough writes, adding that while Truman “had managed to put aside part of his $100,000 salary as President during his second term … it was in all probability a modest amount.” House Speaker Sam Rayburn, who had been in Congress since 1913, had virtually no life outside his legislative duties. Robert Caro in Master of the Senate, the third volume of his still-uncompleted Lyndon Johnson biography, depicts the spartan life of the unmarried Rayburn: “When the House wasn’t in session and other congressmen went home to their families, the Speaker went home to a small apartment near DuPont Circle.”
To be sure, sackcloth was not the dominant fashion statement in Washington in the 1950s. Lawyer-fixers like Tommy Corcoran and Clark Clifford had made the lucrative transition from the White House to the corridors of money. Johnson had prospered by snagging, along with his wife, Ladybird, lucrative Texas radio and television licenses. Eisenhower’s first Cabinet was dubbed “Eight Millionaires and a Plumber” in honor of union official Marty Durkin, who became secretary of labor.
But the dominant ethos through the 1970s was that service at the highest levels of government was rewarding enough to justify the financial trade-offs. That began to change during the greed-is-good years of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Former Reagan adviser Michael Deaver was immortalized in a 1986 Time cover story on “Influence Peddling in Washington.” Time had nailed a trend that continues today: “Tempted by the staggering fees lobbyists can command, lawmakers and their aides are quitting in droves to cash in on their connections. For many, public service has become a mere internship for a lucrative career as a hired gun for special interests.”
The trick these days is to maximize your wealth while still serving in government. As usual, Congress offers a case study. The Campaign Legal Center found that during the early days of the pandemic in 2020, dozens of members of Congress in both parties actively traded stocks (many related to health care) after receiving Covid briefings. Yet despite the public outrage, bipartisan efforts to limit stock trading by senators and House members have generated more press releases than legislative action.
There will be those who argue that Sotomayor is entitled to earn as much as she can from her books since she has selflessly served on the federal bench since she was first confirmed as a district judge in 1992 under George H.W. Bush. But if money were Sotomayor’s prime motivation, she could have stepped down as a judge at any time and embarked on highly lucrative legal work. Sotomayor—like most of her fellow justices and so many other top government officials—wants to have it both ways. And that unwillingness to sacrifice remains a sad-eyed symbol of the erosion of public service in today’s Washington.
LikeLike
I do not see any working links and even broken links to the reputable and traditional media sources you mention in your spiel.
To me, no links to those original and reputable sources you mentioned, means I do not and will not accept your allegations. Since I had no links to fact check, by tomorrow I will have forgotten what you claim and what I wrote in this little box before clicking “Post Comment”.
LikeLike
In that case it probably isn’t worth pointing out that I was pasting in the text of the article that is located at the link I provided.
LikeLike
I had no trouble accessing the linked articles. Just clicked. I don’t think Flerp was all alleging anything. Just presenting. I would love to see some more mainstream content. I found Dick Durbin’s comment to be to the point.
LikeLike
Great story, but why references to Sotomayor’s trip as though the author was defending her? Has someone suggested this trip was a big moneymaker?
LikeLike
No they haven’t suggested that it “was a big moneymaker” but the reich wingers have suggested that this trip was no different than the trips that Alito and Thomas repeatedly took. It’s used to show (falsely) that “everyone is doing it.”
LikeLike
Justice Sotomayer apparently understands what it means to fulfill her position with the highest of ethical standards.
LikeLike
yes!!!
LikeLike
Absolutely a priceless statement from her-““My success came about because I read,” she told them.” Yes, Yes Yes!!!!
LikeLike
https://newrepublic.com/article/174418/sonia-sotomoyors-book-scandal-banal-troubling
LikeLike
Thank you for the link confirming how sleazy the far right Justices are:
“Over the years, Thomas has raked in $1 million from his bookish pursuits; Neil Gorsuch has brought in $900,000 since he joined the court in 2017. But that’s chump change compared to Amy Coney Barrett, who signed a $2 million book deal in 2021, shortly after she became Donald Trump’s third anti-abortion Supreme Court justice. The risible topic of Barrett’s still-unpublished literary work: how justices should keep their personal feelings out of their jurisprudence. “
LikeLike
“should keep their personal feelings out of their jurisprudence.”
They-Barrett, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kavanaugh may keep “their personal feelings out of jurisprudence” but they sure as hell don’t keep their reactionary xtian theofascist beliefs out of their jurisprudence.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s a very fair article.
LikeLike
Thanks, Flerp. I’m not sure how I feel about it. I’m guessing that arranging to speak about a book might entail some compensation through book sales. Were her aides aggressively pushing the sale of her books or making more or less standard arrangements? Not enough info. Notably, I believe her books have had little to do with politics per se. I still find the anecdote admirable, and I see no evidence that someone was seeking to influence her conduct as a Supreme Court justice through padding her speaking and book fees.
LikeLike
Some more details from the AP story in the link below. It does sound like it’s “standard” for the Supreme Court, which is a shame in and of itself.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sotomayor-book-sales-ethics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02
“Supreme Court staffers have been deeply involved in organizing speaking engagements intended to sell books. That is conduct prohibited for members of Congress and the executive branch, who are barred under ethics rules from using government resources, including staff, for personal financial gain. Lower federal court judges are also instructed to not ‘lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance’ their ‘private interests.’
In a statement, the Supreme Court said it works with the justices and their staff to ensure they are ‘complying with judicial ethics guidance for such visits.’”
LikeLike
‘In a statement, the Supreme Court said it works with the justices and their staff to ensure they are “complying with judicial ethics guidance for such visits.”
“When (Sotomayor) is invited to participate in a book program, Chambers staff recommends the number of books (for an organization to order) based on the size of the audience so as not to disappoint attendees who may anticipate books being available at an event,” the court said.’
H-m-m. Who is the “Supreme Court” referred to above? “Aggressively pushing” or “recommending?” I get that the justices are not ordinary authors who rely on sale of their books for their livelihood. I suppose the smart way would be to have the publisher deal with the number of books a venue wants/needs for a speaking engagement.
Can you tell I don’t know what I am talking about?
LikeLike
Another one of a series:
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-investigation-books-donors-15b60acaffb933ebd21aae0b57b39f7d
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a monthslong inquiry, which included reviewing tens of thousands of pages of documents from more than 100 public records requests, The Associated Press has examined what happens behind the scenes when Supreme Court justices travel to colleges and universities for lectures and other events.
The AP learned the identities of donors and politicians invited to events with justices, details about the perks that have accompanied the school visits and information about how school trips have helped advance books sales.
Some of the key takeaways:
BOOK SALES
The documents reveal how university visits are a convenient way for justices to sell their own books. That’s especially true in the case of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a prolific author who has kept the court’s most active travel schedule over the past decade, according to the records reviewed by the AP.
Emails and other documents show that Supreme Court staff members have been directly engaged in facilitating book sales by asking schools how many copies they want to buy and by helping to arrange the purchase of mass quantities.
At a 2019 event jointly hosted by the Multnomah County Library in Oregon and Portland Community College, a Sotomayor aide told organizers that “250 books is definitely not enough” for a program with an expected 1,000 guests in which people would be required to have a copy to meet the justice for a signing after the event.
Michigan State University purchased 11,000 copies to be distributed to incoming first-year students. When Clemson University in South Carolina worried that 60 copies might be too many for Sotomayor to sign, a staffer reassured the school that “most institutions order in the ranges of 400 and up.”
And before a scheduled visit to the law school at the University of California, Davis, for the 2018 commencement, the court staff pitched the school on signed copies of her books in connection with the event.
In a statement, a Supreme Court spokesperson said that staff members work to follow judicial ethics guidance and that “at no time have attendees been required to buy a book in order to attend an event.”
“Schools have occasionally invited Justice Sotomayor to take part in a program in which they select a book for an entire school or a freshman class, and the Justice gives a book talk,” the statement said. “When she is invited to participate in a book program, Chambers staff recommends the number of books based on the size of the audience so as not to disappoint attendees who may anticipate books being available at an event, and they will put colleges or universities in touch with the Justice’s publisher when asked to do so.”
A LURE FOR MONEY
Supreme Court justices insist that they cannot and do not participate in fundraising events. But the emails obtained by the AP show that the court’s definition of a fundraiser — an event that raises more than it costs or where guests are asked for contributions — excludes much of the work that typically goes into persuading a wealthy donor to cut a check.
That’s given schools wide latitude to court rich patrons.
For instance, ahead of a 2017 event with Justice Clarence Thomas, officials at McLennan Community College in Texas worked with the prominent conservative lawyer Ken Starr and his wife, Alice, to craft a guest list designed to reward school patrons and incentivize future contributions. In an interview, Starr’s widow called it “friendraising.”
In an email planning the event, the executive director of the college’s foundation wrote that she had thoughts about whom to invite “mainly because they are wealthy conservative Catholics who would align with Clarence Thomas and who have not previously given.”
Thomas isn’t the only one whose status as a justice has been leveraged by schools eager to capitalize with donors. Before Justice Elena Kagan visited the University of Colorado’s law school, one official suggested a “larger donor to staff ratio” for a 2019 dinner with her, emails show. Another event organizer said the organizer was “open to suggestions about which VIP donors to cultivate relationships with.” A school spokesperson said the attendees weren’t asked for any donations connected to the event.
Clemson University in South Carolina hosted Sotomayor for a 2017 session with students and for a private luncheon. One official said it was hoped the events, which included donors, would “ultimately generate resources” for the university’s Humanities Advancement Board, which played a lead organizing role. As university officials devised a guest list, an alumni relations official wrote: “When you say $1M donors, please be sure to include our corporate donors at that level, too.”
A university spokesman said the event with Sotomayor was not a fundraiser.
In a statement, a court spokesperson said it “routinely asks event organizers to confirm that an event at which a Justice will speak is not a fundraiser, and it provides a definition of ‘fundraiser’ in order to avoid misunderstandings.” The spokesperson said justices have occasionally declined to attend events even after being told expressly that they were not fundraisers.
LikeLike
Continued:
POLITICAL COMMINGLING
Visits to universities are promoted as academic in nature, but they also have facilitated encounters between justices and elected officials.
Months after he was seated on the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch attended an event at the University of Kentucky with then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, hosted by a center to study the judiciary named after one of McConnell’s closest friends, a former federal judge.
In 2020, after teaching a weeklong course at the University of Florida’s law school, Thomas extended his stay in the state to attend a gathering of the regional branch of the Federalist Society, where he was introduced with effusive praise by Gov. Ron DeSantis, with whom he also had a private dinner.
Thomas also attended a private dinner during a visit to the University of Texas at Tyler that was sponsored by a group of donors to then-Rep. Louie Gohmert. Six years later, Gohmert would spearhead a lawsuit that sought to empower Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election that Donald Trump lost.
A court spokesperson said: “Justices exercise caution in attending events that might be described as political in nature, following guidance in the Code of Conduct which cautions judges against engaging in political activity. Merely attending an event where an elected official might also be in attendance — such as several of the events described in your email — does not necessarily render the event impermissibly political in nature.”
NO ETHICS CODE
Some of the conduct revealed by the AP likely would run afoul of ethics rules that cover officials in other branches of government as well as lower federal court judges.
Lower court judges, for instance, are generally barred from engaging in fundraising, political activity and “lending the prestige of judicial office” to advance a judge’s own “private interests.” Supreme Court justices are asked only to adhere to what Chief Justice John Roberts referred to in April as a set of foundational “ethics principles and practices.”
The information in this review comes at a time of plummeting confidence in the court, brought on in part by a succession of news media revelations about members of the court, including reports by ProPublica that Thomas repeatedly accepted luxury vacations, including a $500,000 trip to Indonesia in 2019, and sold property to and accepted school tuition for a nephew from Harlan Crow, a billionaire businessman, Republican donor and longtime friend.
After the AP stories were published, Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said: “If they just establish the basic standards of every other branch of government, it would give us much more confidence in their integrity.”
LikeLike
Definitely points to the need for an ethics code to be imposed. How speaking engagements are arranged and what the parameters should be is only one issue.
LikeLike
‘…Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said: “If they just establish the basic standards of every other branch of government, it would give us much more confidence in their integrity.” ‘
Yup.
LikeLike
Agree.
LikeLike
No it wasn’t
LikeLike