Millions from books: Here's what Supreme Court financial disclosures show
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up stage at Broadway musical "& Juliet"
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson treated "& Juliet" fans to a special performance for one night only!
WASHINGTON − Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made more than $2 million last year for her best-selling memoir, according to the latest round of financial disclosure reports for the justices which became public on June 17.
Jackson's book, 'Lovely One,' made the New York Time's bestseller list when it came out last year amid an extensive publicity tour for the court's newest member.
That's much more than the $250,000 in royalties Justice Neil Gorsuch reported earning last year for a book on the law he co-authored with a former clerk.
But Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett could report eye-popping figures in the future for her forthcoming memoir, which reportedly earned a $2 million advance.
Barrett's book, 'Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution,' is coming out in September.
The annual disclosure reports cover the preceding year of financial activity.
As is his usual practice, Justice Samuel Alito received a 90-day extension to file his annual report.
Jackson, in last year's report, disclosed she'd initially received a $893,750 advance for 'Lovely One.'
More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor continues to receive royalties − $73,944 last year – from children's books she's written. And she received a $60,000 advance from Penguin Random House for "Just Shine,' another children's book to be published in September.
In May, multiple justices recused themselves from deciding whether to accept an appeal involving alleged plagiarism in books published by Penguin Random House. That meant there were not enough justices to consider the appeal, which left in place a lower court's ruling dismissing the lawsuit.
Other outside earnings and travel
In addition to income from their writings, several justices reported outside earnings from teaching.
Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh each received $31,815 from Notre Dame Law School.
Gorsuch received $30,379.91 from George Mason University.
Travel the justices reported, without detailing their cost, included:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
How The Fellowship of the Ring explains post-9/11 America
When Peter Jackson's epic adaptation of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring debuted on December 10, 2001, it was considered a likely boondoggle. Hollywood hadn't launched a truly successful fantasy film franchise since the first Star Wars trilogy in the 1970s. If it was going to create one now, the savvy take was that the Harry Potter movies were a better bet, with a more active fan base and a simpler, more movie-friendly plot structure than that boasted by JRR Tolkien's labyrinthine Lord of the Rings trilogy. What's more, Peter Jackson's last major film, 1996's The Frighteners, was a flop. Jackson, Variety wrote at the time, with slight incredulity, 'must have convinced someone that he would do it right.' Vox Culture Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Fellowship and its sequels became a template for what Hollywood success would look like over the next two decades. It showed executives that people were eager to see expensive, high-production value adaptations of intellectual property they already knew and loved, and that they would pay well for the privilege. It showed that audiences were willing to put up with a certain amount of lore — even labyrinthine lore — in exchange for high-stakes battles with a little artful CGI to make them look all the more epic. But Fellowship had a special resonance with its audience because of the moment in which it came out: a mere three months after September 11, 2001. It met an American audience ready and eager to throw themselves into the story of an epic battle between good and evil — one that good was definitely going to win. The parallels felt almost too good to be true. It met an American audience ready and eager to throw themselves into the story of an epic battle between good and evil — one that good was definitely going to win. 'With the world newly obsessed with the clash of good and evil, the time would seem to be ideal for 'The Lord of the Rings,'' mused Variety. 'Tolkien's tale of good people who band together against a Dark Lord and his minions has never been more timely than in our troubled age,' declared the New York Post. The Fellowship of the Ring introduced audiences to the peaceful, prosperous Shire, only to show them how its vulnerable borders left it open to attack by the faceless, subhuman hordes of the forces of evil. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, with its pacifist hobbit hero, is frequently read as an antiwar tract. But to an American audience that felt newly vulnerable and desperate for revenge, Jackson's Fellowship felt like a perfect allegory for why a 'war on terror' was not just desirable but in fact necessary. Writing in the New York Times in 2002, film critic Karen Durbin ran through the 'accidental echoes' between the Lord of the Rings films and the war on terror: 'Evil or 'Evildoers?' Sauron or Saddam? And how many towers?' The parallels were real. George W. Bush really did vow to rid the world of evil-doers, and Tolkien's characters really do spend a lot of time pontificating on the forces of evil. Incidentally, Lord of the Rings villain Sauron does sound a bit like former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and there is an unfortunate echo between the title of Tolkien's second volume, The Two Towers, and the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Even without those echoes, Durbin went on, there was an uncomfortable blurring between the spectacle of the films' battle sequences and military propaganda. 'Dehumanizing the other guy is the first step in training soldiers and fighting wars,' she wrote, decrying Jackson's plentiful scenes of animalistic and terrifying orcs marching on the small, scrappy fellowship. 'The danger is that this is what makes not just warfare palatable but extermination itself.' The interpretation of the whole Lord of the Rings franchise as an allegory of America's war on terror was so pervasive that when The Two Towers came out in 2002, Viggo Mortensen, the actor playing heroic Aragorn, spent a lot of his press tour trying to shut it down. 'I don't think that The Two Towers or Tolkien's writing or our work has anything to do with the United States' foreign ventures,' he said on Charlie Rose, 'and it upsets me to hear that.' (Tolkien, for the record, insisted that his story was 'neither allegorical nor topical' when the books' first audiences wanted to read it as a World War II narrative.) The message embedded in Fellowship would prove more apt as the war on terror went brutally on. In Tolkien's mythology, the ring's power will be misused by a nation that considers itself good just as surely as it will be misused by a group caricatured in the press as evil. No one can resist the corruptive force of pure power. At the time, The Lord of the Rings parallels felt uncanny. Looking back, they betray how difficult it was for anyone in America to see the world through any lens outside of 9/11 at the time — and how seductive it was to imagine oneself as part of a grand conflict that was both ethical and morally pure. The Lord of the Rings offered Americans a vision in which the forces of good, no matter how corruptible, went to war under a white flag, and the forces of evil, no matter how complicated their backstory, went to war under a black flag. It was more than escapist enough for America's bruised and reeling spirit in 2001. We, too, could be Aragorn, heroic and brave and good — and we could make our nemesis into Sauron, too evil even to have a face.
Business Insider
5 hours ago
- Business Insider
From Foes to Allies: The Unlikely Partnership Powering Opendoor's Comeback
In the summer of 2025, a rare alignment was formed between a hedge fund manager, a community of retail traders, and a public company on the brink. The story of Opendoor Technologies (OPEN) has become a case study in how three very different forces can converge around a shared goal, even as their relationship faces tests that may determine its long-term future. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Opendoor Technologies, known for its 'iBuying' model that uses data and algorithms to make instant cash offers on homes, saw its stock peak at $36 in 2021. It then fell sharply as rising interest rates and a frozen housing market pressured its balance sheet, bottoming at $0.51 in June 2025. With the risk of delisting from the Nasdaq, investor interest had all but vanished. A New Courtship Between Wall Street and Main Street A surprising twist began to transpire in July. Eric Jackson, founder of EMJ Capital, disclosed via X that he had begun buying shares between $0.70 and $0.80. He called Opendoor 'a potential 100-bagger' and set a public target of $82 per share. 'The business model Keith Rabois built works. The macro headwinds are flipping. Costs have been slashed,' Jackson wrote in his July 14 post, adding that he was inviting retail investors to join the campaign. His comment drew immediate engagement and shifted the conversation around the company. This outreach contrasted with the 2021 GameStop (GME) battle, when retail traders led by online personality 'The Roaring Kitty' fought against hedge funds with large short positions. In the case of Opendoor, Jackson was not opposing retail but actively courting them. This shift in tone created the first point of connection in what would become a three-sided relationship. As retail investors picked up the thread, the stock surged nearly 189% in a week, with trading volumes hitting records. 'If OPEN reaches $82, then CEO Carrie, all of Opendoor's executives, and well-known investor Eric Jackson will become billionaires,' wrote one retail trader, @Christo68098001. Another, @FancyMeoww, added, 'If @TheRoaringKitty by miracle joins us in our OPEN Opendoor movement, we may be going interstellar and break our $82 target with ease.' The Call for Change at the Top From that point, Jackson and retail traders began operating almost as a single voice. Jackson contributed valuation models comparing Opendoor to high-growth companies like Carvana (CVNA), projecting $12 billion in revenue by 2029 and applying multiples that could support his $82 target. Retail brought viral momentum and constant discussion of the stock across social media. However, the third side of the triangle, the company itself, was slower to engage. Carrie Wheeler, Opendoor's chief executive officer since 2022, had kept a low public profile. Jackson noted in August that Wheeler had made only one media appearance in 2.5 years. 'The only fix,' he posted, 'is to put me on the OPEN board within 10 days as the retail voice. If by August 20 the board stonewalls, I will consider selling every share.' Then, Opendoor's founder, Keith Rabois, entered the scene to take part in the discussion and pointed out criticism of Wheeler. 'She is utterly incompetent. She was a mediocre CFO. Tech companies should never be led by CFOs,' Rabois wrote. In another post, he referred to her as 'the worst CEO in America'. He suggested that Opendoor could benefit from both new leadership and favorable macro conditions, saying, 'New Fed Chairman and new CEO: Winning.' A Rare Response From the Top The coalition between Jackson, retail investors, and Rabois began to press for changes to governance, a pivot toward AI-driven cost savings, and a return of 'founder DNA' to the company. @quantum_trader, a retail account, wrote, 'Need to go ALL-IN on AI to further accelerate cost savings and supercharge revenue growth. This will lead to $82 PT set by @ericjackson.' In broad and general terms, the plan for Opendoor is to turn it into an 'AI-first housing company' built on its decade of proprietary data, from home valuations to location analytics. He and other activists want the company to move beyond traditional iBuying toward a machine learning–driven platform that cuts costs, grows revenue, and supports a target of $82 per share. In the meantime, the company reported positive EBITDA for the first time in years during its second quarter, and revenue exceeded consensus estimates. The stock traded near $2 by mid-August, a gain of about 300% from its June low. Yet guidance for the third quarter came in below expectations, which cooled momentum. Wheeler addressed the surge in attention in a rare X post, her first in four years. 'There's been a lot of new attention on Opendoor from investors recently. It's an incredible gift. I'm deeply thankful for every new shareholder who believes in what we're building,' she wrote. She described the company's expansion into agent partnerships and the launch of a product called Opendoor Cash Plus. She added, 'If that means thousands of people choosing to own part of Opendoor because they believe in the long-term value and transformation we're driving, I'm all in.' Momentum Meets the Need for Direction Jackson welcomed the outreach but emphasized that more was needed. 'We want a comprehensive plan articulated on how she plans to take the $0.51 company she's presided over for 2.5 years to the heights of $200 per share in 3 years,' he told 'We have a plan for that. Does she agree? Is she the one to take us there?' Other investors echoed this view. Randian Capital called Wheeler's post 'a step in the right direction' but pressed for an updated investor presentation and an AI-focused investor day. Opendoor board member Adam Bain responded on X to confirm that the team was working on these initiatives and called AI 'a big opportunity.' The interplay among Jackson, retail investors, and Opendoor's management remains in motion. The partnership between Jackson and retail has proven durable through earnings volatility, as both sides continue to see upside in operational improvements, macro tailwinds, and a potential strategic shift. The company, meanwhile, is signaling some openness to deeper engagement, but it remains to be seen whether it will adopt the activist coalition's roadmap. An Unfinished Story This alignment of hedge fund activism and retail enthusiasm is unusual in public markets, and may even mark a new era for the relationship between institutional and retail investors. It suggests that investor influence can take new forms when traditional boundaries are set aside. In the case of Opendoor, it has created a rare love triangle, where each side brings distinct qualities: Jackson's analytical rigor and media presence, retail's persistence and viral reach, and the company's platform and data assets. Whether the relationship will deepen into a long-term alliance or fracture over strategy will depend on the months ahead. As of now, all three remain in close orbit, linked by a shared belief that a business once left for dead can be revived, scaled, and valued far above its current market price. Is Opendoor a Good Stock to Buy? The Street's analysts are still not on board when it comes to Opendoor, with the stock boasting a Hold consensus rating. Out of eight recent ratings, only one analyst considers the OPEN stock as a Buy. That would be J.P. Morgan's four-star analyst, Dae Lee. The average price target stands at $1.27, implying a 45% downside from the current price.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tariff revenue makes it hard for Supreme Court to rule against Trump, Bessent says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Increasing revenues flowing into U.S. government coffers from tariffs would make it difficult for the Supreme Court to rule against the Trump administration on the issue if a lower court case makes its way to country's top court, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Tuesday. "The more money coming in, it gets harder and harder for SCOTUS to rule against us," Bessent said in an interview on Fox Business Network's "Kudlow." Bessent was responding to a question about a case currently in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., which challenges the legality of what Trump calls "reciprocal" tariffs as well as a separate set of tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.
