By Despite being only a third of the court, liberal Supreme Court justices have collected nearly two-thirds of the book income reported by current members of the Court, raising questions about whether publishers are paying merely for manuscripts—or rewarding the political and institutional value of the authors.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson have received more than $8.2 million combined from book advances and royalties, according to figures compiled by the court-transparency group Fix the Court, writes SCOTUSBlog.
That is approximately 70 percent more than the combined $4.84 million received by the four conservative justices with disclosed book earnings: Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Jackson has received approximately $4.14 million for her memoir, “Lovely One,” while Sotomayor has earned about $4.06 million from her memoir and several children’s books. Gorsuch has received $1.72 million, Thomas $1.5 million, Barrett $1.27 million and Kavanaugh $340,000.
Among justices who have published books while serving on the Court, the two liberal authors have averaged roughly $4.1 million apiece. The four conservative authors have averaged approximately $1.2 million.
The totals could change. Barrett reportedly signed a $2 million contract and may receive additional payments, while the advance for Justice Samuel Alito’s forthcoming book has not been disclosed. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan have not published books during their time on the Court.
The disparity does not prove misconduct. Publishers may believe memoirs by Sotomayor and Jackson will sell more copies or appeal to a broader audience than books centered on originalism and legal theory.
But the size of the payments creates an obvious appearance problem. Publishers are not simply buying the words of lawyers who happen to sit on the Supreme Court. They are purchasing books whose value depends heavily upon the authors holding one of the most powerful government positions in the country.
Unlike most outside income, book advances and royalties are not subject to the approximately $35,000 annual limit imposed on other work by federal judges. That allows publishers to transfer millions of dollars directly to sitting justices through contracts that remain largely shielded from public scrutiny.
For conservatives, the imbalance is likely to look like another example of powerful institutions providing financial support to figures on the political left.
As New Conservative Post recently reported, the Democratic National Committee is nearly broke in the wake of DOGE. The party had approximately $16 million in cash and more than $18 million in debt, compared with roughly $128 million and no debt for the Republican National Committee. Democrats even pledged their partially owned Washington headquarters as collateral for a $15 million line of credit.
CNN: Republican Super PACs have way more money than their Democratic counterparts
Party Super PACs:
🔴 Republicans: $657 million
🔵 Democrats: $334 millionRNC vs DNC Cash On Hand:
🔴 RNC: $129 million
🔵 DNC: $-2 million pic.twitter.com/CkbcdtuGcR— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) July 27, 2026
The financial collapse comes as other pillars of Democratic power have begun to weaken. Party leaders are pushing aggressive gerrymandering schemes in states such as New York, while questions remain about how much of the broader liberal political machine depended on billions of dollars in USAID funding directed toward left-wing organizations.
There is no evidence that USAID money was transferred directly to the DNC. But the timing has raised an obvious question: How much of the Democratic Party’s apparent strength came from institutions, foundations, nonprofits and government-supported networks willing to bankroll the left?
The Supreme Court book deals offer a more direct example of that institutional advantage. The payments are legal and publicly disclosed. But publishers are not handing out $4 million checks to obscure judges or unknown law professors. They are paying enormous sums to sitting Supreme Court justices whose names carry political, cultural and ideological value.
Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, has proposed requiring federal judges to place book earnings in restricted accounts that generally could not be accessed until they leave the bench. Exceptions could be permitted for purchasing a primary residence, family medical emergencies or a child’s education.
“The public does not want to see government employees become millionaires during their time in government,” Roth wrote.
Such a rule should apply equally to conservative and liberal justices. Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have also profited from book contracts, often with conservative publishers eager to promote right-leaning members of the Court.
But equal rules would not erase the unequal results. The two largest Supreme Court publishing paydays went to liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Together, they have received substantially more than all four conservative authors combined.
Perhaps Sotomayor and Jackson simply write more marketable books. Or perhaps liberal institutions are once again willing to pay a premium for prominent figures who advance their preferred political and cultural narrative.
Either way, the disparity deserves scrutiny and looks like another example of how the left pays off their allies.
“Public servants, including the justices, should not be chasing major paydays while still toiling away at their day jobs,” Roth concluded.
