The Supreme Court at the State of the Union: A Tale of Duty and Discomfort

Introduction: The Uncomfortable Tradition

The State of the Union address, an annual event where the President of the United States addresses Congress, is a significant ritual in American democracy. While it is a moment of political unity and grandeur, for the Supreme Court justices in attendance, it is often a evening of discomfort and duty. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has candidly referred to it as “a political pep rally,” reflecting the unease many justices feel in this setting. Despite their reservations, Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, and retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined Roberts at the 2023 address, continuing a tradition that balances respect for the office of the presidency with the judiciary’s impartial role.

A Reluctant Presence: The Justices’ Perspectives

Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, has consistently attended the State of the Union, despite his admitted discomfort. His critiques highlight the tension justices face: required to maintain a neutral demeanor while surrounded by partisan fervor. Other justices, like Clarence Thomas, have opted out for over a decade, citing the unpredictable environment and personal distaste for the cacophony of reactions. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. famously mouthed “not true” during a 2010 address, in response to President Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United decision, an incident that underscored the challenges of maintaining judicial decorum in a politically charged atmosphere.

The Dynamics of Attendance: Loyalty and Longevity

Scholars note that younger justices and those recently appointed are more likely to attend, often driven by a sense of loyalty and gratitude towards the president who appointed them. Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that it becomes easier to abstain when the president is no longer the one who appointed you, suggesting that emotional connections play a role in initial attendance. However, as justices gain seniority, the demands of the event, coupled with the desire to avoid political entanglements, lead many to stop attending. This dynamic reflects the balancing act justices must perform between respect for the presidency and maintaining judicial independence.

Navigating the minefield of Applause

One of the most significant challenges justices face at the State of the Union is deciding when and how to react to the President’s remarks. They must carefully consider which statements are uncontroversial enough to warrant applause, without appearing to endorse specific policies. Justice Alito vividly described this dilemma, recounting how presidents often begin with universally agreeable statements, only to segue into more divisive issues. This requires justices to be vigilant and prepared to cease their applause abruptly, a difficult task that can lead to awkward moments. Chief Justice Roberts has likened the experience to sitting as "mannequins," emphasizing the careful restraint required.

Historical Context: A Shifting Landscape

Contrasting the current climate, past State of the Union addresses saw justices more actively engaged. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s civil rights initiatives received applause from five justices, including Chief Justice Earl Warren. However, in recent decades, the event’s increased politicization has led justices to adopt a more restrained approach. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged this shift in 2019, noting that justices now applaud only in rare and non-controversial circumstances. This evolution reflects the judiciary’s heightened awareness of its role in maintaining impartiality amidst a hyper-partisan environment.

Conclusion: The Enduring Symbolism of Presence

Despite the discomfort and challenges, the presence of Supreme Court justices at the State of the Union remains a significant symbolic act. It underscores the separation of powers and the judiciary’s role within the U.S. constitutional framework. Justices attending the event navigate a delicate balance between respect for the presidency and the need to maintain judicial independence. While the experience may feel like being "potted plants," their presence serves as a reminder of their commitment to upholding the Constitution, even in the most politically charged of settings. As the nation continues to evolve, so too will the dynamics of this tradition, reflecting the enduring and complex relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch.