Don't believe everything you read from Washington, CBS legal correspondent warns

In three decades of covering the U.S. Supreme Court, CBS Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford has seen many changes in the court and in the media covering it. "I am not convinced that all that change is for the better," she said in her keynote address to the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas annual conference Sept. 26.

By CANDACE VELVIN, Texas Press Association

"Approaching my fourth decade in journalism, three decades of which I've spent in the nation's capital, I can say with complete certainty that being in Washington and being a national correspondent in Washington, it's never been as difficult to be fair and objective as it is right now."

Crawford began covering the court in 1994 for the Chicago Tribune. She later worked for ABC News and "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" on PBS.

An attorney as well as a journalist, she is a recognized authority on the Supreme Court and author of the 2007 book "Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for the Control of the United States Supreme Court."

She recalled the court in 1994, then led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, noting the makeup of that court was the same for 11 years.

She noted some familiar patterns from that court. "It was a conservative court, seven justices nominated by Republican presidents, but it was a moderate court," she said. "In case after case with those seven and at one point eight justices nominated by Republican presidents, this was a court that really disappointed conservatives."

Crawford noted the court at that time refused to overturn Roe versus Wade; refused to end affirmative action; would not lower the wall between separation of church and state; and disappointed conservatives on other issues.

In 2005, with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, "conservatives were determined not to repeat some of those same mistakes. That has lead to a deliberate approach of selecting the justices who have now taken those places and shaped the court into what we have today."

She also noted that current Chief Justice John Roberts has had charge of the court for 20 years. Recent additions to the court have made this an entirely different court than the courts of previous Chief Justices and the court when Roberts was appointed, she said.

Solidly conservative six to three, the court now operates in what Crawford called "some surprising ways." She said the court does not always split 6-3, and that almost half of the court's opinions are reached unanimously.

"In fact, last term that divide only happened in 9% of the cases. It is unanimous almost half the time," she said, noting the 6-3 cases are often the most controversial. "Whether it's on abortion or affirmative action or the role of administrative state or what we've seen this summer in some of those emergency orders where they're allowing the Trump administration policies to continue in an interim basis while lower courts sort through the legal issues...those cases are 6 to 3."

She predicted this will continue as the court will remain solidly conservative, not becoming moderate over the years as happened with the Rehnquist court.

"Right now I can say with confidence there are nine very independent thinkers on this Supreme Court. They are ... deeply experienced and all quite intellectual with very different views on the law and they're just engaged in kind of this titanic struggle over how to interpret the constitution and how to interpret federal statutes," she said. "And you've seen from some of the language certainly in some of the more prominent cases that they have very sharp disagreements and some of the language has been has been quite stark. But again, that's not unusual. If you look back over the history of the court, justices have long had quite sharp differences in perspectives.

"I think what you're seeing now is a real struggle about the way to interpret the Constitution, the way to analyze those laws. But that's not the narrative that you increasingly see about the Supreme Court," she said.

"When you follow news coverage of the court, if you believe everything that you read online or on social media or see on cable news, you would assume that this Supreme Court is corrupt, that it is beholden to Donald Trump, that it's in the tank for Trump, that it's lawless. That narrative is completely false. But it has helped contribute to an atmosphere and a decline in public confidence in the court and its legitimacy. And that is dangerous for our democracy."

Recalling her hometown newspaper in rural Alabama, Crawford detailed her early training and work in print journalism. She said he worked from the viewpoint of being the eyes and ears of her readers, something she continued in her later career covering the court.

"My role as a reporter is like standing in the shoes of someone from Morgan County, Alabama, which is where I grew up," she said. "They're never going to be able to go to Washington. Probably never be able to even listen to an argument from the Supreme Court. But those decisions have enormous impact on their lives.

"I know some of you are probably just going to think that I'm old, that I don't get it, that I'm out of touch with this new world, and that extraordinary times we're in require extraordinary measures. But to them, I would say that is not journalism as I knew it. And that is not the kind of journalism that is so important our framers deemed a free press the first amendment to our constitution."

Crawford noted that rather than objectivity, fairness, good judgment and most importantly getting it right, today's media coverage is driven by biases, fury over the outcome of decisions, pressure from news organizations to put forth a narrative for clicks or subscribers or views or ratings or their brands. "This new new media and some of the new reporters aren't as interested in getting it right anymore, which means journalism is not always what it used to be. And in my view that is not for the better. I think in many quarters objectivity has been replaced by activism, and that is not our role."

Instead, Crawford said, news coverage of the court has changed to enforce a further narrative — implying scandal or corruption.

"I think these attacks without basis undermine the legitimacy of the court and the public's faith in the institution. That is not only dangerous for democracy it's a precarious situation for the court," she said.

Crawford traced the current political climate surrounding the court to 2020, when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to replace the late Justice Anthony Scalia. (Because the vacancy occurred so close to the 2020 election, President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland never got a Senate hearing and the position was left vacant so that the next elected president could make a nomination.)

"That angered Democrats. But they were powerless to do anything about it. So I think there is kind of a genesis in the political side of things and the decisions that happened since by the court have kind of furthered this divide," she said. "I think to many people that decision meant that surely if the court was going to overturn Roe versus Wade that would mean this court is illegitimate...they're not making their decisions based on the law."

Crawford said she disagrees. "This is a court with very strongly held views on how to interpret the constitution, but they have methods and ways of interpreting the constitution. And you may disagree with them, I may disagree with them, but it is not lawless. And that's had an impact not only on public opinion about the court, but in the overarching political climate at the court."

Security threats to the justices following the Dobbs decision showed this sense that there's some finger on the scale and that has proven dangerous for the court. The partisan media coverage has undermined the nation's trust in the court and the judicial system, Crawford said.

"I think now when the media is under attack and scrutiny more than ever, we have an even greater duty to just go back to the basics; cover the facts, drop the narratives, question both sides, cover both sides equally. And until then, I would say to you, when you're reading about things that are happening in Washington, don't believe everything you read," she said.

"But my other message is one of thanks because of what you do here in Texas through this organization, the work that you do to promote transparency, the work you do in your major state papers and local papers, which I will always find dear to my heart as a local reporter for many years at the Chicago Tribune.

"That should be our example. I mean, that's what Washington media could learn from...where you talk to both sides, where you are fair, where you just follow the facts, where you want more information and more transparency so that you can inform people. You are standing in people's shoes and doing it the right way. And for that, I say thank you. We have a lot we can learn from you."