Can’t wait to read this new Josh Chafetz draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities). Here is the abstract:

Corruption is everywhere at the Supreme Court. The justices routinely rule on what is—and, more frequently, what is not—corrupt. Simultaneously, their off-the-bench behavior has subjected them to a barrage of criticism that they themselves are corrupt, accusations to which they have responded in halting and inconsistent ways. To what does all this amount?

This Article examines the justices’ rhetoric around the idea of corruption and the consequences of their rhetorical choices. How do they talk about the concept of corruption? What stories do they tell about corrupt actors?  How does corruption interact with their discussions of the role moralities of various types of political actors? What sorts of actors do they portray as most likely to be corrupted, and what forms might that corruption take?

This inquiry into the justices’ rhetoric of corruption yields a rather clear result: consistently, across doctrinal issues and issues of Court administration, the justices have discussed corruption in a manner that simultaneously reinforces a narrative of their own trustworthiness and undermines the trustworthiness of other institutions and actors. As a result, this rhetoric serves to aggrandize judicial power—which perhaps explains why there has been more consensus across party lines about corruption than about many other hot-button issues at the Court.