CBS News’ chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford publicly rejected the narrative that the U.S. Supreme Court is “corrupt,” calling the allegation both patently false and harmful to public confidence in the judiciary. On CBS’s Face the Nation this Sunday, Crawford said critics who frame the high court as corrupt are overstating the issue and undermining the rule of law. Her remarks come amid ongoing debates about the Court’s decisions, especially among some on the political left.
Crawford said the idea that the Supreme Court engages in corruption emerged strongly after the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and has been fueled further by claims that the justices are politically aligned with former President Trump. She said this narrative is overreported, untrue, and dangerous because it erodes trust in one of the three branches of government. Crawford emphasized that while Americans may disagree with the Court’s decisions, disagreement is not evidence of corruption.
“It is profoundly wrong to call it or say ‘corruption’ where, in fact, there is none,” Crawford said. She noted the Supreme Court has been conservative for years and that differences in judicial philosophy reflect how nine justices interpret the Constitution and federal law. According to Crawford, this struggle over interpretation is an expected part of judicial function, not evidence of illicit behavior.
Crawford argued the most underreported story of the year was the public’s lack of understanding of the judicial branch and its role. She cited the long tradition of judicial independence and painted the Court as a consistently functioning institution rather than a corrupt body swayed by partisan politics. Her comments highlight a broader media conversation about how the judiciary is portrayed amid heated national debates.
The CBS correspondent also referenced past criticism by Senate Democrats, whom she said engaged in a “calculated effort” to undermine the Court following the Dobbs decision. Crawford warned that persistent attacks on the Court’s legitimacy could weaken public trust and harm democratic processes over time.
Crawford’s remarks underscore a growing divide in how media outlets discuss judicial independence and legitimacy. Supporters of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority see the institution as faithfully applying the Constitution, while critics often frame controversial decisions as evidence of partisanship or corruption. By rejecting the latter claim as “dangerous,” Crawford sought to reinforce the importance of preserving public confidence in the judiciary.
