Original photo by ZUMA Press, Inc/ Alamy Stock Photo
For more than two decades, Judy Sheindlin — known to her adoring audience as Judge Judy — delivered famously withering verdicts from the bench in her daytime TV show of the same name. Although Judge Judy was encased in courtroom-esque fiction, Sheindlin is a real judge (having been originally appointed to family court by NYC Mayor Ed Koch in 1982), and her sharp-tongued legal smackdowns reflected her genuine jurisprudence style.
Oops, incorrect!
It's a factSheindlin originally wanted to name her show “Hot Bench,” and then thought “Judy Justice” might work. The two names did eventually find other homes: Sheindlin became producer of CBS Studio’s “Hot Bench” in 2014, and in 2021 launched a new show on Amazon Prime called “Judy Justice.”
While Sheindlin herself is the real deal, her cases were not decided in a real court of law. Most of the cases that appeared on the serialized juggernaut Judge Judy (which began in 1996) were real disputes sourced from small claims courts, but instead of playing out in court, they went through a process known as arbitration — a method for settling disputes outside the actual legal system. (“Arbiter Judy” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.)
Even though the show didn’t take place in a real courtroom, Judge Judy still earned some serious bucks. In fact, during the tail end of the show’s tenure, from 2012 to 2020, Sheindlin made an estimated $47 million per year. She was also the highest-paid TV show host in 2018, after she sold the show’s 5,200-episode catalog for a cool $100 million to CBS. Judge Judy wrapped its final season in 2021, but that wasn’t the end for Sheindlin, who launched a brand-new show, Judy Justice, on Amazon Freevee in 2021.
Numbers Don't Lie
More Interesting Reads
The first Supreme Court chief justice was ______, who also wrote part of the Federalist Papers.
Ready to reveal?
Confirm your email to play the next question?
The first Supreme Court chief justice was John Jay, who also wrote part of the Federalist Papers.
The Supreme Court doesn’t allow video recordings of its proceedings.
While cameras in the courtroom make for good television, much of the U.S. court system, especially the highest court in the land — the U.S. Supreme Court — doesn’t allow any visual recording of court proceedings. Enacted in 1946, Federal Rule 53 states that “the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.” In 1972, the government doubled down and banned television cameras as well. (Oral arguments have been recorded since 1955.) With the Supreme Court making groundbreaking decisions on a regular basis, there has been growing pressure to allow visual recording to help inform the American public. It may not have the entertainment value of The People’s Court or Judge Judy, but it would give Americans a front-row seat to some of the most consequential legal decisions in the country’s history.
Darren Orf lives in Portland, has a cat, and writes about all things science and climate. You can find his previous work at Popular Mechanics, Inverse, Gizmodo, and Paste, among others.
top picks from the Inbox Studio network
Interesting Facts is part of Inbox Studio, an email-first media company. *Indicates a third-party property.
