The U.S. Supreme Court grapples with a leadership crisis

Good morning.

When interviewing Clarence Thomas in his Supreme Court chambers in 2007, I asked him about an illustration on his wall that depicted a Black man slumped over a desk. He told me it was a gift from a friend who “thought it captured my life…the exhaustion.” When asked what kind of exhaustion, he said: “Everything. Mental. Physical. Spiritual. Just constant change. You just want to slow down. You see people take a walk and you want to, too.” I wasn’t sure if I was witnessing burnout or someone having a bad day.

I thought of that when Thomas was the lone dissenter in Friday’s court ruling that upheld the government’s right to disarm domestic abusers. It was one of many important decisions so far on topics ranging from taxes and unions to abortion pills and Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for office. But there’s also an unusually large number of key decisions still left to drop as the Supreme Court enters the final days of its term, including on business topics like social-media controls and the use of bankruptcy court to shield against civil liability claims. That’s led some to wonder if the nine justices are working efficiently and getting along.

Thomas, now the oldest and longest-serving justice, doesn’t seem to be much happier at work, facing ethics scandals and questions over his wife’s role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. He’s complained about being underpaid, called Washington a “hideous place,” and described the 2022 leak of a draft opinion in the court’s abortion ruling as an “infidelity” that undermined his trust in the institution. He’s not alone; the Pew Institute has found public faith in the Supreme Court to be at historic lows.

Does it matter that we’re no longer in an era when a liberal like Ruth Bader Ginsburg could spar with conservative Antonin Scalia by day and hit the opera with him at night? Should we care whether Sonia Sotomayor, who’s diabetic, might have worried when Neil Gorsuch declined to wear a mask during COVID? (She worked remote that day.) Do acrimonious nomination hearings in the Senate dent spirits on the bench? Has Chief Justice John Roberts embraced efforts to hold the court accountable or blocked them? Should any employment contract run until death? Do you have to be happy to be good at your job?

Existential questions, perhaps, but ones I’ve pondered when examining the output of an institution dealing with significant reputational damage. When a friend of mine was appointed to Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice, she viewed it as an honor and a position of trust. She still feels that way. When I asked Thomas about the critical impact of his work in that 2007 interview, he said: “I don’t think you should do these jobs with that in mind. I don’t think you should relish affecting people’s lives like that, because you don’t know whether you have the right answers.” To him, maybe it’s just another job.

More news below.

Diane Brady
diane.brady@fortune.com
Follow on LinkedIn

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com