By Cortez Collins, FTC law clerk

The debate over whether the U.S. Supreme Court should adopt an official social media presence is no longer about novelty. It is about legitimacy, accessibility, and transparency in a digital age.

Across the world — and here we’re focusing on the Supreme Courts of Canada, Mexico and the U.K. — apex courts have already embraced social platforms to communicate directly with the public:

Has an official Facebook account: Canada, Mexico

Has an official Instagram account: Canada, Mexico, U.K.

Has an official LinkedIn account: Canada, Mexico

Has an official X account: Canada, Mexico, U.K.

Has an official YouTube account: Canada, Mexico, U.K.

None of the three appears to be on TikTok at the moment. Canada gets extra credit for having separate English and French social media accounts on most platforms, and Mexico has an active Threads account. Links to the social media sites are here.

In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court remains an outlier: one of the most powerful courts globally, yet one of the least digitally accessible. That gap matters. In an era where public trust in institutions is fragile, silence is no longer neutral. It is interpreted as distance.

Courts in countries like Canada, Mexico and the U.K. have recognized that public-facing communication is part of their institutional responsibility. Mexico’s Supreme Court, for example, maintains an active online presence that includes social media engagement and accessible explanations.

This approach does not undermine the court’s authority but rather reinforces it by making its work understandable to ordinary citizens.

Similarly, courts in other democracies already routinely post updates, livestream proceedings and provide simplified summaries of complex decisions, meeting the public where they already are.

The benefits of this approach are immediate and practical. Social media allows courts to control their own narrative, reducing reliance on third-party interpretation and minimizing misinformation. Instead of relying solely on journalists or legal analysts to translate opinions, courts can present key takeaways themselves in clear, concise language. This leads to faster dissemination of decisions, fewer misunderstandings and a more informed public. In a country as large and diverse as the United States, that kind of direct communication is not just helpful, it is necessary.

More importantly, social media strengthens institutional legitimacy, especially among younger generations. Gen Z, in particular, consumes news almost entirely through digital platforms. If the U.S. Supreme Court is not present in those spaces, it effectively removes itself from the civic awareness of a generation that will shape the future of law and policy.

A democracy that values participation and transparency should not expect engagement from its citizens while remaining absent from the platforms they use daily. Visibility is not about popularity; it’s about relevance.

Critics often argue that social media threatens judicial neutrality, but global experience suggests otherwise. Courts abroad have implemented structured, institutional accounts (not personal ones), to avoid ethical pitfalls. The focus remains informational: posting decisions, announcing arguments and providing educational content. These courts are not engaging in debates or commentary; they are simply ensuring that accurate information is readily available. The U.S. Supreme Court can adopt the same model without compromising the dignity or independence of its highest court.

Ultimately, the question is not whether the U.S. Supreme Court should modernize. It’s whether it can afford not to. Other nations have demonstrated that social media can coexist with judicial independence while improving public understanding and trust. If the U.S. Supreme Court continues to resist this shift, it risks reinforcing perceptions of elitism and inaccessibility at a time when confidence in institutions is already under strain.

A carefully managed social media presence would not politicize the Court but would simply bring it into alignment with the expectations of a modern, digital society.