In this episode of Passing Judgment, we engage with Maureen Groppe, who delves into the nuanced arena of Supreme Court reporting. Host Jessica Levinson probes into the personal dynamics among justices, leading Maureen to emphasize their professional decorum despite ideological differences. Jessica's students' questions introduce topics like maintaining objectivity and Supreme Court reform, with Maureen discussing the hurdles of simplifying complex legal issues for a general audience. This discussion offers a unique glimpse into the behind-the-scenes world of Supreme Court reporting and its impact on public perception.

Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:

1️⃣ Court's Collegiality: Groppe shares that justices stress their collegiality, although social interactions are often downplayed by some, like Justice Kagan, who emphasizes professional respect.

2️⃣ Impact of Oral Arguments: Groppe shares the challenge of determining the impact of oral arguments on court decisions, using an emergency abortion case as an example where Justice Barrett's reactions played a crucial role.

3️⃣ Reporting Impartiality: The episode includes a discussion on how reporters like Groppe maintain neutrality when covering Supreme Court cases with significant implications.

Follow Our Host and Guest:

@mgroppe

 @LevinsonJessica