When the US Supreme Court handed down its decision on June 16, 2015, as to whether or not same sex marriage was a constitutional right, it almost acted as if no one really cared. There was no press conference at the Court where justices answered questions from reporters about why they had decided that way. Nor did the justices conduct individual interviews with reporters after the decision to explain its meaning or potential effects. They did not schedule a national tour to build public support for the decision.

Instead, Justice Kennedy calmly read a summary of the Court opinion in the courtroom while, one floor below, Public Information Office employees handed out copies of the decision to a gaggle of expectant reporters gathered in an office. After the distribution, the court's public information officer went back to her desk and the justices returned to their chambers and went about their work.

That does not mean the decision was ignored. Others filled the gap left by the justices. Interest group representatives immediately stepped up to microphones and television cameras set up by journalists outside the Court building or texted reporters at various media outlets across Washington with reaction to the decision. The president issued a statement, as did members of Congress. Yet, absent from the discussion were the nine justices of the US Supreme Court.

The relationship between justices and the journalists who cover their decisions would appear to be non-existent. The journalists cover the Court, but the justices appear oblivious to the imperatives and norms of journalism. Indeed, justices seem to lack many incentives to participate in a relationship with the press. Justices are appointed for life. They have no constituency. And they often issue counter-majoritarian decisions that incur public wrath. Why would either side interact with the other?

Yet, the relationship is more complex than that. The purpose of this chapter is to explain the relationship between the US Supreme Court and the press as a symbiotic one where both sides need each other to function. However, the dynamic nature of that relationship recently has produced a mutual acknowledgement of that symbiosis, which had not occurred previously.