Fake News: RGB Papers 100-Year Restriction 'Not True,' Supreme Court Says
The restrictions that justices put on their Supreme Court papers after they are no longer on the bench have generated considerable controversy over the years.
April 11, 2019 at 06:06 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A book author's claim that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has imposed a 100-year restriction on access to her U.S. Supreme Court papers after she leaves the bench triggered a swirl of criticism and concern this week among historians, journalists and law professors.
But it turns out the 100-year restriction as stated in the new book “Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Life,” wasn't accurate.
“The arrangements mentioned in the book are not true,” Kathy Arberg, head of public information at the Supreme Court, told The National Law Journal. “The justice has not announced her plans for her Supreme Court papers and would never impose such a restriction.”
The restrictions that justices put on their high court papers after they are no longer on the bench have generated considerable controversy over the years, particularly when access to the papers is barred until many years after every justice with whom the departed justice has served is no longer living.
The recent controversy followed a tweet posted by Lynda Dodd, a professor of legal studies and political science at the City University of New York. Dodd highlighted part of the bibliography of Jane Sherron De Hart's new book about Ginsburg.
The bibliography excerpt said: “Papers from her tenure as associate justice of the Supreme Court (1993—) will not be available to researchers until a hundred years after the last justice with whom she has served is no longer alive.”
The 100-year restriction seemed out of character for a justice who has been one of the most transparent and accessible justices in modern times.
De Hart told The National Law Journal in an email: “My information is based on the guide to the RBG papers in the manuscripts division of the Library of Congress. It is not a matter that I have ever discussed with the justice.”
Janice Ruth, acting chief of the manuscript division of the Library of Congress, which houses Ginsburg's pre-judicial and court of appeals files, said Ginsburg “has been very receptive to requests by researchers.”
The Library of Congress does not have any of Ginsburg's Supreme Court papers, Ruth said. The draft guide to Ginsburg's papers, Ruth said, does not contain a 100-year restriction. Files that include specific cases from Ginsburg's years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit are restricted so long as any judge who participated in that case is alive, Ruth said.
Unlike rules governing the preservation of presidential papers, no law controls the fate of justices' papers, a fact that has resulted in a wide range of arrangements made by justices and their heirs. Justices typically do not disclose their preservation plans before their death, so the future homes of papers of current justices are unknown.
“Justices own their own papers, and unfortunately, they are under no legal obligation to preserve them,” said Kathryn Watts, a University of Washington School of Law professor who has written about justices' papers.
Justice Hugo Black burned some of his papers. Justice David Souter, who retired in 2009, has specified that his papers, donated to the New Hampshire Historical Society, would not be made public until 50 years after his death.
At the other end of the spectrum, Justice Thurgood Marshall caused a posthumous controversy by deciding that his papers would be released as soon as he died. There was no way of predicting when that would happen, but he died in 1993, less than two years after he retired, so some of the files revealed very recent material to the public.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist angrily wrote to the Library of Congress, “I speak for a majority of the active Justices of the Court when I say that we are both surprised and disappointed by the library's decision to give unrestricted public access to Justice Thurgood Marshall's papers.”
The late justice Antonin Scalia's family struck a middle approach with his papers, which will be housed at the Harvard Law School Library. Papers from his tenure as a judge on the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1982 to 1986 and as a Supreme Court justice from 1986 to 2016 will begin to be released in 2020, or roughly four years after his death.
But files about specific cases “will not be opened during the lifetime of other justices or judges who participated in the case,” Harvard said.
Since some of his recent colleagues were relatively young, that means Scalia's files on blockbuster cases such as same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act won't likely be made public for decades.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute read'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250