You’ve seen the picture. Nine people in black robes, some sitting, some standing, all looking incredibly serious against a heavy velvet backdrop. It’s the "class photo" for the most powerful court in the world. But have you ever noticed how little we actually see beyond that one specific frame?
Honestly, images of supreme court justices are some of the most controlled pieces of media in American life. Unlike the President, who has a personal photographer following them to every burger joint and Situation Room meeting, the Justices exist in a sort of visual vacuum.
If you want a photo of Justice Sonia Sotomayor or Justice Clarence Thomas, you basically have two choices: the official portrait or a blurry cell phone shot from a law school guest lecture. There is no middle ground. There are no cameras in the courtroom. No C-SPAN. No "behind the scenes" TikToks from the robing room.
The Two-Minute Rule: How the Class Photo Happens
Every time a new Justice joins the bench, the group has to do the whole song and dance again. They call it the "Investiture" or just the group portrait. It’s a tradition that goes back to 1867. Back then, they didn't even have a building; they used to trek down to local photo studios in D.C. to get their picture taken.
These days, the process is a well-oiled machine. It happens in the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court Building. The Marshal’s staff spends hours steaming the velvet curtains. They literally use a level to make sure the chairs are perfectly aligned.
Then come the photographers.
The Court’s official photographer gets the first crack at it. But since 1941, they’ve let the press in too. Sorta. The Associated Press and other big outlets get exactly two minutes to get their shots. One photographer, J. Scott Applewhite, who has been doing this for decades, once described it as a "red carpet" event where nobody talks. The photographers are silent. The Justices are mostly silent. It’s a 120-second sprint to capture the image that will define the Court for the next few years.
📖 Related: Trump Approval Rating State Map: Why the Red-Blue Divide is Moving
Once those two minutes are up? The press is ushered out. The doors close. The mystery resumes.
Why You’ll Never See a Photo of a "Live" Argument
This is the big one. People always ask: why can’t we just see what’s happening during oral arguments?
If you search for images of supreme court justices "in action," you’ll mostly find sketches. These are the famous courtroom illustrations. Since cameras are strictly banned, news outlets hire artists to sit in the gallery and draw the scene with pastels and charcoal.
The Court is terrified of "soundbites." They worry that if there were cameras, the Justices (and the lawyers) would start performing for the audience instead of focusing on the law. Justice David Souter once famously said, "The day images come into the Supreme Court, it will be over the dead body of the person who is speaking."
He’s retired now, but that sentiment hasn't really changed.
Even in 2026, the closest we get is a live audio feed. We can hear Justice Elena Kagan’s quick-witted hypotheticals, but we can't see her facial expressions while she’s making them. It creates this weird disconnect where we know their voices perfectly but only have a static, frozen-in-time image of their faces.
👉 See also: Ukraine War Map May 2025: Why the Frontlines Aren't Moving Like You Think
The Seniority Seating Chart (It’s Not Random)
If you look closely at any group image of the Justices, you’ll notice a pattern. They aren't just standing wherever they want. It’s a rigid hierarchy based on how long they’ve been on the bench.
- The Chief Justice always sits right in the middle.
- The most senior Associate Justice sits to their right.
- The second most senior sits to their left.
- This "alternating seniority" continues until the four most senior are seated.
- The five "junior" Justices stand in the back row, again following the seniority rule from center to the edges.
The person on the far right of the back row? That’s the "junior justice"—currently Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. It’s a visual way of showing the pecking order without saying a word.
What Most People Get Wrong About Official Portraits
There’s a common misconception that these photos are public domain because they’re "government work."
Kinda, but not always.
Official portraits taken by government employees (like the Court's staff photographer) are generally in the public domain. However, many of the most famous images of supreme court justices were taken by press photographers from the AP, Getty, or Reuters during those brief two-minute windows. Those images are copyrighted. If you’re a blogger or a student looking for a photo to use, you have to be careful.
Your best bet for free, high-res photos is the Supreme Court’s own website or the Library of Congress. They have a massive archive of historical shots, including the 1867 Alexander Gardner photo where the Justices looked like they were posing for a Civil War tintype.
✨ Don't miss: Percentage of Women That Voted for Trump: What Really Happened
The "Candid" Problem
Because the Justices are so protected, when a "candid" photo does leak, it’s a huge deal. Remember the photo of Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Amy Coney Barrett appearing together at a Reagan Institute event? Or the shots of Justices at the State of the Union?
These moments are rare because, outside of the courtroom, the Justices try to maintain a "monastic" existence. They don't want to be celebrities. They want to be the law.
But in the age of the smartphone, that’s getting harder. You’ll occasionally see a blurry photo of Justice Brett Kavanaugh at a Nationals game or Chief Justice John Roberts in line at a coffee shop. These "civilian" photos are the only time we see them without the black robes, which—honestly—is the only time they look like regular people instead of living monuments.
How to Find and Use These Images Correctly
If you actually need to find high-quality images of supreme court justices for a project or just because you’re a law nerd, here’s the breakdown of where to look:
- The Supreme Court Website: Go to the "About the Court" section. They have a "Group Photographs" page that goes back over a century. These are the gold standard.
- The Curator’s Office: They manage the "Fine Arts" collection. If you want a photo of a painting or a bust of a historical Justice (like John Marshall), this is the source.
- Library of Congress (LOC): This is the gold mine for high-resolution TIF files of the old-school Justices.
- Digital Collections: Search for the "Harris & Ewing" collection at the LOC. They were the Court’s go-to studio from 1930 to 1941 and captured some of the most iconic "Spartan" style portraits.
When you're looking at these images, pay attention to the lighting. Notice how it’s almost always "Rembrandt lighting"—one side of the face is slightly in shadow. It’s a classic portrait technique meant to convey wisdom and depth. It’s not an accident; it’s branding.
Actionable Tips for Sourcing Images
- Check the Metadata: If the "Creator" field says "Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States," it's usually safe for educational use.
- Avoid "Action" Shots: Remember, if it looks like a photo from inside the courtroom during a trial, it’s almost certainly a fake or a composite. The only "action" photos allowed are during ceremonial investitures.
- Search by Chief Justice Era: Instead of searching "old supreme court," search "The Rehnquist Court" or "The Warren Court" to get more specific results.
The Supreme Court is the last "black box" of the American government. Their images are a bridge between the public and a bench that otherwise remains invisible. By understanding the rules of the "class photo" and the history behind the velvet curtain, you can see these portraits for what they really are: a very deliberate, very careful exercise in power.
Check the Library of Congress's "Prints and Photographs Online Catalog" (PPOC) for high-resolution versions of the Harris & Ewing collection if you need public domain images of the 1930s-era Court.