Jackson Makanikeoe Grubbe ‘23
Satire Editor
On Monday, March 28, the closely-kept secret of a SCOTUS gambling ring was exposed by T. Flint Quinn, a clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Quinn told reporters that an increasingly large portion of his work became dedicated to tracking bets among Justices and clerks. A bet on the recent case United States v. Tsarnaev pushed Quinn to inform media outlets. The Justices issued statements in response.[1]
Roberts and Alito bet $20,000 over how many Justices would agree on the judgment. Justice Sotomayor oversaw the bet, setting the over-under at 6½. The outcome was 6-3, meaning Roberts had won and Alito had lost. After Roberts asked for the money, Alito challenged the bet, stating that he “didn’t shake on sh*t.” In her statement, Justice Sotomayor said she “saw everything, and that was cold-blooded.” She noted that it was “rather whack and uncharacteristic of Ol’ Sammy to renege on a bet like that. He has always been a straight shooter.”
Pictured Here: An artist's rendition of the Gambling Ring based on Quinn's description.
Because of Alito’s reluctance to pay, Roberts asked Quinn to collect the money. Quinn had other ideas. In front of other Justices, Quinn told Chief Justice Roberts that he “did not become a Supreme Court clerk to do someone’s personal bidding.” Roberts pulled Quinn aside and told him, “We understand that you’re new, but that’s how it works around here. We do the bidding of whatever Administration appointed us.”
Quinn argues that gambling on legal outcomes injures judicial legitimacy because it creates financial conflicts of interest. In his statement, Chief Justice Roberts said, “In no way does the gambling ring compromise the legitimacy of the nation’s highest Court.” He stated that if the Court can survive (1) majority opinions describing why the Court has no jurisdiction but continuing to decide on the merits;[2] (2) the common practice of pretending to base decisions in case law while functionally gutting the cited precedent; (3) the fact that all but one Justice attended either Harvard Law or Yale Law; and (4) the blatant politicization of judicial nomination hearings,[3] despite the Justices’ job being to objectively apply the law without commitment to a desired outcome, then this Court can survive anything. Justice Barrett agreed, noting in her statement that “comparatively, this is small potatoes.”
Justice Gorsuch said, “We have to do something to make these cases fun.” Justice Breyer stated that “betting increases the judiciary’s total hype level, especially for those dry, procedural cases.” Breyer noted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only Justice in recent memory not to gamble, largely because she enjoyed civil procedure, around which most of the betting takes place. Justice Breyer continued, “Civil procedure—barf, am I right?” Justice Kagan addressed similar concerns, adding that “Quinn is high-key a narc for this.”
In his statement, Justice Thomas said, “I do not understand all the brouhaha. It is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition to play games with the law. Since this country’s founding, American lawyers have done so. It is only appropriate that the federal judiciary work the same way.” Justice Kavanaugh added that “for decades, people have played basketball above the Supreme Court. How serious can you expect us to be?”
The only thing all Justices could agree on is that they had no intention of shutting down the gambling ring.
---
jmg3qt@virginia.edu
[1] Despite the Justices mostly agreeing and discussing overlapping concerns, they wrote separate statements.
[2] This had been done as early as Marbury v. Madison, where the Court went out of its way to say “I am the law” after deciding that it did not have jurisdiction.
[3] Chief Justice Roberts was careful to note, however, that the Senate Republicans blocking Merrick Garland in 2016 because of a presidential election nine months away but later going on to confirm Justice Barrett eight days before the 2020 election was “so savage, like something Darth Vader might do, that it justifies the political move. Some tactics have such a high inherent swag factor that they do not raise legitimacy concerns.”