SCOTUS and COVID is a timely and accessible book. Houston, Johnson, and Ringsmuth combine their interdisciplinary focus on the U.S. Supreme Court, COVID's impact on institutional procedures, and the media with strong new data and careful social science research methods. The result is a wonderful new book that will make a great addition to courses and scholarly research agendas alike!

Christina L. Boyd, University of Georgia

Houston, Johnson, and Ringsmuth examine a topic that has needed reevaluating for a long time – media coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the press and beyond. What is more, they do it during a pivotal point in our nation’s history to understand if, and how, the justices and media reacted to the Covid-19 Pandemic. This book covers a topic that will continue to be cited for years to come to explain anomalous trends and behavior at the Court during this transformative period and raises important questions for future researchers to consider.

Elizabeth Lane, Louisiana State University

At a time when the Supreme Court’s role and legitimacy is a hotly debated question, this book jumps into these debates with an important perspective. The authors have quickly analyzed a huge shift in media access to Supreme Court arguments – brought about by the exigency of the pandemic – to answer enduring questions of transparency, the role of media, and democratic accountability. The book shines, due to both its timeliness and timelessness.

Kjersten Nelson, North Dakota State University

The Supreme Court is an institution shrouded in mystery, but the justices have always opened their doors to the public and the media and allowed them to watch attorneys argue their cases before the Court. Oral argument is the most public thing the Supreme Court does, yet the justices have been slow to provide broad access to it, refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom or release transcripts and voice recordings in a timely manner. The justices claim they do this to avoid misinterpretation of their work -- after all, the Court's work is different from Congress's work, and the Court should consequently not be scrutinized in the same public manner. But everything changed in May 2020, when the Supreme Court agreed to livestream oral argument during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the first time, the general public had access to oral argument, and, as Houston, Johnson, and Ringsmuth point out, the public and the media had their first chance to watch and react to the Court in real time. SCOTUS and COVID explains what broader access meant for media coverage of the Court in short and long term. Part history, part empirical analysis, and all interesting, this book offers a phenomenal look at why the Court opened its virtual doors to the public, how that changed coverage of the Supreme Court, and whether the Court's concern about offering information in real time was justified (spoiler alert: the results suggest they were worried about nothing). This is a must read for anyone interested in the Court, the media, and access to political institutions.

Jessica A. Schoenherr, University of South Carolina

I am happy to include a new and exciting book in my undergraduate class on the Supreme Court. The authors cleverly examine how the Supreme Court—not famous for being adaptive to current technologies—responded to the pandemic while managing the ebb and flow of its docket and interacted with the media and the public. The research also offers insight into the rich literature on the institutional history and evolution of the Supreme Court, especially with regards to its relationship with the press. This work will resonate with college students who also had to evolve and adapt during the pandemic.

Valerie Hoekstra, Arizona State University