The third branch of government and the fourth estate have a long and complicated relationship. Most analyses of this relationship concentrate on Supreme Court decisions that influence freedom of the press, but Richard Davis' book turns the focus to the justices and their use of the press and media. What the author has provided is a pathbreaking study that is descriptive, analytical, and historical in context.

We do not think of Supreme Court justices as “going public,” but according to Davis, this is not a new phenomenon. Justices have always used opinions as a means of shaping debate on the issues and influencing colleagues and external agents. Justices have numerous opportunities to communicate with their colleagues through conversations, conference discussions, opinions, and use of their clerks. The author is more interested in the external strategies.

The study is theoretically grounded. Davis starts the book by nesting the going-public strategy in a broader context of judicial decision making. He examines the justices' desire to go public as a function of the typical attitudinal and strategic motivations that we associate with them as policy-directed political actors. Justices use the media to serve a variety of purposes. They may be trying to educate the public (whether a specialized public or the general public), to initiate or continue a policy debate, to serve their institution, or for their own purposes. Underlying the phenomenon is the normative expectation that justices remain aloof and keep a healthy distance from the media and the public.

There is a certain risk assumed by justices in going public. Part of the diffuse support that the Court enjoys is due largely to the public's unawareness of the vagaries of judicial decision making. In issuing public statements and working through the media, the Court pulls the curtain back and provides a glimpse that could ultimately cost it some of its support and legitimacy. Justices increasingly seem willing to assume that risk.

The dominant core of the book is a historical analysis of the relationship between justices and the press. Davis combs through newspapers and the papers of the justices to discover the motivations and strategies for using the media and opening the Court to more scrutiny. He basically analyzes the trends by century. The eighteenth century is marked by the transformation of the Supreme Court from the least dangerous branch to a major factor in the construction of the new nation. The appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall and the creation of judicial review were forged in a charged political environment. The press of the time was deeply partisan, providing sufficient motivation for media attention on and criticism of the Court and responses from the justices (whether directly, anonymously, or through confederates). The justices had to protect the institution as they constructed it.

In the nineteenth century, Davis finds the rise of different motivations and opportunities. The rationale for using the press changed from an institutional to an individual focus. A number of the justices had personal designs on offices like the presidency and were not above using the media to boost their public standing and visibility. In addition, a number of justices had extensive experience with the press, and so they had contacts and felt comfortable using the media to further individual goals. These justices used the press to monitor the surrounding political environment.

Changes in the nomination process in the twentieth century have altered the dynamics of the relationship. That process typically introduces the public to a prospective justice, and it also initiates a debate on the Court and constitutional law. But too often it devolves into partisan battles that crowd out the potential education value. In the second half of the twentieth century, Davis notes, there were changes in the type of people who went to the Court: Recent justices have not held political office and have had little or no experience with the media. Changes in technology and media have also modified the links between them.

Like other institutions, the Court does not always get to control the message. Some of the media attention is unwanted and unflattering. The Court has often put itself in the crosshairs through its controversial decisions. It received extensive coverage (most negative) during the post-Dred Scott period and in the lead-up to Franklin Roosevelt's “Court Packing Plan.” Attacks on the Court have put the institution on the front page of the newspaper. It has also become a convenient target for the other branches of government. Justices have additionally used the press to follow and shape the coverage.

In addition to providing a strong theoretical foundation and an extensive historical analysis, the author includes a content analysis of print (New York Times) and broadcast (NBC News) coverage of justices in the 1968–2007 period. Taken together with Lawrence Baum's Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior (2008), we now know a great deal more about the process by which unelected judges communicate with the public and various constituencies.

The book is invaluable as a foundation for classroom teaching and future scholarly research. Those who teach judicial process and constitutional law can relate well-known examples of justices who did not lead a monastic life on the Court. Some, like Abe Fortas and Felix Frankfurter, remained advisors to presidents; others, like Louis Brandeis, interjected themselves into policy debates. With this book, we have a new set of examples of justices seeking to enhance their public persona or using the media to pursue various other goals. As a pathbreaking study that is now the definitive work on the subject, it will provide the grist for future research.

Despite its obvious merits, Justices and Journalists is not without a few problems. It seems that many of the justices who leave the Court and suspect that their replacements will tip the balance in the opposite ideological direction are doing two related things. First, they are trying to preserve their individual or doctrinal legacy. It appears that Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, for instance, were using public statements in an attempt to protect the doctrine they took decades to construct. Second, justices are shining a spotlight on their institution to raise public awareness. Harry Blackmun, in his public statements and his opinions, tried to demystify the Court, warning the public that changes in the membership of the institution could lead to wholesale changes in the law. The author alludes to such motivations (particularly in regard to John Paul Stevens), but does not systematically label them as factors. Apparently, such motivations will only increase over time.

On a less important note, the book is occasionally redundant. For example, the author relates the story of the relationship between Hugo Black and journalist Marquis Childs in three different places. In each one, we get a full explanation of the nature of their relationship, rather than a simple reference to the previous discussion. But that is a minor critique of what is otherwise an important study that will be widely read and cited.