When the U.S. Supreme Court’s nine justices released their annual financial disclosures on Friday (June 7), Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reported a cooler-than-usual line item: that Beyoncé had personally gifted her four concert tickets.
In a yearly report required by federal ethics laws, Justice Jackson listed her various investments, as well as a nearly $1 million book advance she received from Penguin Random House for her Lovely One memoir set to hit bookshelves this fall.
But the most notable item was under gifts, where the justice listed “Concert Tickets (4),” valued at $3,711. The source of those tickets? “Beyonce Knowles-Carter.”
The filing, obtained by Billboard, did not include any more information, like what particular shows Justice Jackson had attended or how KBJ and Queen Bey had connected. A spokesperson for Beyoncé did not immediately return a request for comment.
This year’s SCOTUS disclosures have drawn far greater attention than usual, following revelations last year that Justice Clarence Thomas had received undisclosed expensive gifts, including trips aboard a private plane, from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. In his own report on Friday, Justice Thomas formally amended the disputed trips to his earlier filings but did not list any new travel reimbursements for 2023.
Members of the federal judiciary are not barred from owning investments, earning outside income or even accepting gifts like expensive concert tickets. But they must disclose such income to avoid any potential conflicts of interest involving cases that they’re tasked with deciding.
When faced with a financial conflict of interest — or even the appearance of such bias — lower federal judges are required to recuse themselves from cases. In a new code of conduct issued last year after the Thomas-Crow uproar, the high court agreed to follow essentially those same rules. But those new regulations noted that recusals are harder at the Supreme Court, where a justice cannot simply be replaced by another judge.
In the case of Justice Jackson, such questions would only arise if Beyoncé had business before the high court — an outcome that’s not impossible, given the rash of copyright litigation in the music industry, but seems unlikely any time soon.
