2026-04-22T08:00:56.446Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：琼·比斯库皮奇，CNN首席最高法院分析师
3小时前
发布于 2026年4月22日，美国东部时间凌晨4:00
长期以来，美国最高法院始终以一个统一整体的形象示人，所有大法官都身着统一的黑色长袍。其裁决由多数派集体作出，当大法官们援引先例时，都会恭敬地提及“本院”。
但如今，“九人”更像是各自为政的独立个体。已有七名大法官撰写或即将出版书籍，讲述个人经历或自身的司法理念。近几周来，数位大法官公开亮相，宣扬个人主张和观点，有时甚至会适得其反。
这已不再是以往的常态。曾几何时，已故大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚（1986年至2016年任职）以其极具对抗性的演讲和大量的课外著作而引人注目。他在各高校巡回演讲，为自己的原旨主义司法理念争取支持，由此在审判席之外塑造了个人形象。
如今，多名大法官似乎都在打造自身品牌。凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊、艾米·科尼·巴雷特、索尼娅·索托马约尔和尼尔·戈萨奇近期都开展了与书籍相关的巡回宣传活动。塞缪尔·阿利托和布雷特·卡瓦诺的著作将于未来几个月出版。
当下的政治极化态势、本届大法官群体以及特朗普政府相关案件持续带来的压力，共同催生了一个公开暴露分歧的最高法院。这一趋势不仅仅是近年来常见的相互指责：它是多数大法官为塑造个人形象、宣扬独特司法观点而展开的全新且持续的努力。
相关报道 2025年1月20日，在华盛顿特区美国国会大厦圆形大厅举行的就职典礼上，美国最高法院大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔和最高法院大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊在聆听美国总统唐纳德·特朗普讲话。唐纳德·特朗普开启其第二任期，成为美国第47任总统。
大法官间的互怼凸显最高法院“影子日程”紧张局势 阅读时长：7分钟
而这一变化正值投票权、跨性别者权利和移民政策等棘手争议在闭门磋商中酝酿之际。
“我认为这加剧了大法官之间的人际冲突，”芝加哥大学法学教授杰弗里·斯通说道。
“公众将大法官仅仅视为大法官，而非那些公开发表政治甚至法律个人言论的人，这对最高法院和大法官本人都至关重要，”斯通补充道。
上周，现任最高法院任职时间最长的保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯在德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校发表了一篇长篇宣言，阐述其宪法理念，该活动由C-SPAN全程直播，《华尔街日报》也对其进行了节选报道。
托马斯宣称，美国的建国原则在20世纪初兴起的现代自由主义和进步主义时代遭到了破坏。“进步主义试图取代《独立宣言》的基本前提，”托马斯说道，“进而改变我们的政府形式。它认为我们的权利和尊严并非来自上帝，而是来自政府。”
“你们不会意外得知，进步主义者对我们美国人民抱有极大的蔑视，”托马斯补充道。
杰克逊和索托马约尔近期也借公开亮相之机阐述相关议题——主要是当前待决案件，并抨击反对意见。
本月在各法学院活动中，二人都批评保守派多数派加速审理来自特朗普政府的紧急上诉。他们分别暗示右翼多数派与美国民众脱节。杰克逊称，法院紧急日程中仓促作出的裁决——她将其描述为“信手拈来的随意想法”——可能造成“现实世界的危害”。
两周前，索托马约尔针对卡瓦诺，批评其淡化了一项有利于特朗普政府洛杉矶地区移民拦截政策的紧急日程裁决的影响。
“我有一位同僚在该案中写道，你知道的，这只是临时措施，”据彭博法律报道，她说道。“这话出自一位父母都是专业人士的人之口。他可能根本不认识任何按小时计薪的劳动者，”彭博报道援引她的话称。索托马约尔随后向卡瓦诺道歉，承认“我发表了不当言论，对我的同僚造成伤害，我深表遗憾，我已经向我的同事道歉。”
托马斯、索托马约尔和杰克逊都出版了自传——杰克逊在2022年就任大法官两年后推出了自己的自传。
戈萨奇主要通过课外著作详细阐述其法律主张，包括2024年出版的一本书，进一步阐明了他认为政府过度监管美国人、威胁其生命和自由的观点。
相关报道 2021年4月23日，在美国华盛顿特区最高法院大法官合影活动中，美国最高法院大法官塞缪尔·阿利托就座。
特朗普回顾露丝·巴德·金斯伯格去世对最高法院的影响，谈及塞缪尔·阿利托的未来 阅读时长：4分钟
时代变迁与最高法院的变革
宾夕法尼亚大学法学教授让·加尔布雷斯认为，大法官们的这种行为模式是时代的产物，有利有弊。
谈及自传类书籍时，她说：“过去，回忆录通常在退休后才会撰写。甚至有人认为提前出版有失体面。我们的社会规范已经改变。职业生涯中期出版回忆录正变得司空见惯。”她还指出，打破种族和性别壁垒的大法官所著书籍，对公众而言可能尤其具有启发性。
但加尔布雷斯补充道，大法官们越是将焦点放在个人性格上——无论是通过著作还是演讲——公众就越不可能理解“以法治国而非以人治国”的理念。
这一趋势背后或许还有另一个因素：当前的最高法院极化严重。由六名共和党任命的保守派大法官占据多数主导地位，三名民主党任命的自由派大法官时常持反对意见。然而，阵营两侧都出现了派系分化，个别大法官似乎始终心怀不满。
谈及当前高度党派化的时代，加尔布雷斯说：“以民众能够倾听和关注的方式与全国分享当下的情况，确实具有一定价值，但大法官们将个人动态排除在公开视野之外，也同样具有重要意义。”
任职期间出书实属罕见
在过去几十年里，在职大法官开展书籍项目实属罕见。例外情况包括关注环境与保护的威廉·O·道格拉斯，以及致力于研究最高法院历史的首席大法官威廉·伦奎斯特。道格拉斯于1939年至1975年任职，伦奎斯特于1972年至2005年任职（早期1986年之前担任大法官）。
已故大法官桑德拉·戴·奥康纳和托马斯都撰写了自传，但都是在任职十年后才出版。（奥康纳是首位女性大法官，托马斯是第二位非裔美国人大法官。）如今的新任大法官在任命后数月内就会签订图书出版合同。在最高法院两百多年的历史中，可能从未有过如此多的在职大法官同时撰写书籍。
只有首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨和大法官埃琳娜·卡根尚未出版书籍。
大法官们通过演讲和授课等方式获得的额外收入受到限制，但图书版税不受此类限制，他们提交的强制财务披露文件显示，部分大法官已通过书籍获得了数百万美元的额外收入。
目前，大法官的年薪为306600美元，首席大法官年薪为320700美元。
人人都渴望发声
金钱无疑是一个动机，但更重要的驱动力是渴望被听见。强化自身观点和个性的愿望，呼应了当代司法实践中越来越多的单独意见书现象。
过去25年来，书面协同意见书的数量大幅增加。最近的一个例证是在特朗普关税争议案中，各方共提交了164页意见书。罗伯茨代表多数方撰写意见，卡瓦诺撰写了反对意见，但另有五名大法官分别在双方阵营撰写了单独声明。
“我感觉自己被彻底排除在外了，”未单独撰写意见的两名大法官之一的阿利托打趣道。
那只是一句玩笑话，但话糙理不糙。大法官们也无法免受文化潮流的影响，也会害怕错过风头。他们会密切关注同僚在庭外和庭审中的一举一动。
斯卡利亚对司法实践的影响是公认的。他传播了原旨主义和文本主义原则，如今已被多数大法官采纳。
相关报道 2025年9月20日，美国最高法院大法官塞缪尔·阿利托出席在意大利罗马举行的美国驻梵蒂冈大使馆组织的活动。
独家：上月塞缪尔·阿利托大法官曾被送往医院，此前未披露这一事件 阅读时长：3分钟
同样，他那种不留情面的抨击式风格，如今看来也不再独树一帜。杰克逊大法官就展现出了类似的尖锐言辞。
2016年斯卡利亚去世时，德克萨斯大学法学教授桑福德·莱文森曾指出，这位大法官留下的遗产包括“骂战者”的角色，以及重新定义的大法官形象。
“他从根本上改写了‘最高法院大法官’的工作职责，”莱文森说道，“他将大量精力投入到法院之外的事务中。”
如今，他不过是众多巡回造势者中的一员罢了。
The nine justices are increasingly building their own personal brands outside the court
2026-04-22T08:00:56.446Z / CNN
By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst
3 hr ago
PUBLISHED Apr 22, 2026, 4:00 AM ET
The US Supreme Court is seen through a camera viewfinder on February 20.
Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images/File
The Supreme Court has long presented itself as a uniform group of justices, all sheathed in long black robes. Its rulings are the product of a collective majority. And when justices refer to a precedent, they speak reverently of “The Court.”
But “The Nine” more often resemble solo operators these days. Seven have written or are about to publish books telling of their own lives or approach to the law. Several have been on the stump in recent weeks, touting their individual message and views, sometimes seeing it backfire.
This is not business as usual. There was a time when the late Justice Antonin Scalia (who served from 1986 to 2016), stood out for his confrontational speeches and prolific extracurricular writings. As he barnstormed campuses, building support for his originalist approach, he created an identity for himself beyond the bench.
Today, multiple justices appear to be working on their brands. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch have undertaken recent book-related tours. Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh have books that will be published in upcoming months.
The mix of today’s polarization, these particular justices, and the ongoing pressure of the Trump administration cases has produced a bench that is marked by discord that the justices are making public. This trend reflects more than the usual rivalrous complaints of recent years: It’s a new and sustained effort by most to foster an individual persona and advance a distinct view of the law.
Related article Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Associate Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson listen as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Donald Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. Chip Somodevilla/Pool via REUTERS Chip Somodevilla/Pool/Reuters/File Sniping by justices underscores tension over Supreme Court’s ‘shadow docket’ 7 min read
And the development comes as difficult controversies over voting rights, transgender rights, and immigration policy are being negotiated behind closed doors.
“I think it exacerbates some of the interpersonal conflicts among the justices,” said University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone.
“It’s valuable for the court and the justices to be seen just as justices, not as people who go out there and make personal statements about politics or even the law,” Stone added.
Last week, Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving conservative on the current bench, laid out his constitutional philosophy in a lengthy manifesto at the University of Texas, Austin, carried live on C-SPAN and excerpted in The Wall Street Journal.
Thomas declared that America’s founding principles have been undermined through the era of modern liberalism and progressivism that took hold in the early 1900s. “Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence,” Thomas said, “and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the government.”
“You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people,” Thomas added.
Jackson and Sotomayor have also used recent appearances to expound on issues, mainly current cases, and to malign the opposition.
At law schools this month, both criticized the conservative majority’s expediting of emergency appeals from the Trump administration. They separately suggested the right-wing majority was out of touch with Americans. Jackson said that hastily issued rulings on the court’s emergency docket, which she characterized as “scratch-paper musings,” can produce “real world harms.”
Two weeks earlier, Sotomayor targeted Kavanaugh for downplaying the effects of an emergency-docket decision that favored a Trump administration policy of stopping suspected migrants in the Los Angeles area.
“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops,” she said, according to a Bloomberg Law report. “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour,” she said, according to the Bloomberg report. Sotomayor later apologized to Kavanaugh, acknowledging, “I made remarks that were inappropriate. I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.”
Thomas, Sotomayor and Jackson have all published autobiographies – Jackson two years after her 2022 appointment.
Gorsuch has largely used his extracurricular writings to elaborate on his legal arguments, including a 2024 book that further expounded on his view that government excessively regulates Americans, threatening their lives and liberty.
Related article Justice Samuel Alito sits during a group photo of the justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 23, 2021. Erin Schaff/Pool/Getty Images Trump recalls how Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death affected the Supreme Court as he discusses Samuel Alito’s future 4 min read
Changing times and a changed court
University of Pennsylvania law professor Jean Galbraith considers the justices’ pattern a product of the times and one that has both upsides and downsides.
Of books with an autobiographical theme, she said, “It used to be that memoirs generally were written after retirement. Maybe there was even a view that it was tacky to do it earlier. Our social norms have shifted. Mid-career memoirs are becoming commonplace.” And she noted that books from justices who broke color and gender lines can be especially inspiring for the public.
Yet the more the justices bring a focus on their individual personalities, whether through writings or speeches, the less likely the public may appreciate the concept of a government of laws rather than people, Galbraith added.
Another factor may be looming in the trend: the current bench is deeply polarized. It is largely controlled by a six-justice Republican-appointed conservative majority, with the three Democratic-appointed liberals often in dissent. Yet factions have emerged on each side of the divide, and individual justices seem perpetually frustrated.
Referring to these highly partisan times, Galbraith said, “There is some real value in trying to share with the nation what’s going on, in ways that people will hear and pay attention to, while there’s also a lot of value to the justices keeping the personal dynamics out of it.”
Rare to write books while on bench
In earlier decades, it was a rare sitting justice who took on a book project. Such exceptions were William O. Douglas, with his interest in the environment and conservation, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, with his pursuit of court history. Douglas served 1939 to 1975, and Rehnquist, 1972 to 2005 (the early years, until 1986, as an associate justice).
The late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Thomas penned autobiographies, but only after they were in their second decade on the bench. (O’Connor was the first woman justice, Thomas the second African American.) Newer justices have been signing book contracts at a quicker pace, within months of appointment. And it is likely that never in more than two centuries have so many sitting justices been simultaneously authoring books.
Only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan have not written books.
The justices are limited in how much money they can make on the side, for example, through lectures and teaching. But book royalties are not subject to such limits, and their mandatory financial disclosure forms show that some have made additional millions of dollars.
The annual salary for associate justices is now $306,600, and for the chief justice, $320,700.
Everyone wants to be heard
Money no doubt can be a motivation. But a larger drive to be heard has emerged. The desire to reinforce their own views and personalities echoes the contemporary proliferation of separate writings on individual cases.
There has been a significant increase in written concurring opinions over the past quarter century. A recent demonstration was the 164-pages of opinions produced in the dispute over Trump’s tariffs on foreign goods. Roberts wrote for the majority, and Kavanaugh wrote for the dissent. But then five other justices penned separate statements on the dueling sides.
“I felt very left out,” quipped Alito, one of the two justices who did not write separately.
That was a joke. But there may be something to it. The justices are not immune to cultural forces or the fear of missing out. They keep an eye on what their colleagues do, off-bench and on.
The Scalia effect on the law is widely acknowledged. He spread the principles of originalism and textualism, now adopted by most justices.
Related article US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito attends an event organized by the US Embassy to the Holy See, in Rome, Italy, on September 20, 2025. Vincenzo Livieri/Reuters/File Exclusive: Justice Samuel Alito was taken to a hospital last month in previously undisclosed incident 3 min read
Similarly, his denigrating, take-no-prisoners style doesn’t seem so singular these days. Justice Jackson has demonstrated a similar caustic rhetoric.
When Scalia died in 2016, University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson observed that the justice left a legacy that included the role of “trash talker” and a reimagined model of a justice.
“He fundamentally rewrote the job description of ‘Supreme Court Justice,’” Levinson said, “by directing a great deal of his attention outside the court.”
Today, he would be just one of many taking the show on the road.