In a significant development in the federal tax evasion trial of Thomas Goldstein, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, the prosecution has been permitted to introduce excerpts from a New York Times Magazine article as evidence. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the case, allowing jurors to consider statements Goldstein made to legal journalist Jeffrey Toobin.
Goldstein, a prominent Supreme Court attorney, faces multiple charges, including tax evasion and making false statements on mortgage applications. The indictment alleges that between 2016 and 2023, he diverted legal fees to personal accounts to cover gambling debts and underreported millions in poker winnings. Additionally, he is accused of falsely omitting over $14 million in debts to secure a mortgage for a $2.6 million home in Washington, D.C. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/maryland-attorney-charged-tax-crimes-and-making-false-statements-mortgage-lenders?utm_source=openai))
Initially, the court had barred the prosecution from pre-admitting Goldstein’s statements from the New York Times article as evidence. However, the judge left open the possibility for the government to call either Jeffrey Toobin, the article’s author, or a Times fact-checker as witnesses. ([law360.com](https://www.law360.com/whitecollar/articles/2428754/gov-t-can-t-use-nyt-article-as-evidence-in-goldstein-trial?utm_source=openai))
The New York Times Magazine article, published in December 2025, delves into Goldstein’s dual life as a Supreme Court litigator and high-stakes poker player. In the piece, Goldstein discusses his approach to poker, stating, “I think of it as a pretty intellectual thing. Actually, I like it because what poker is, fundamentally, is management of luck and management of risk.” ([archive.ph](https://archive.ph/2025.12.28-215807/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2025/12/28/magazine/thomas-goldstein-supreme-court-gambling.html/?utm_source=openai))
Prosecutors argue that Goldstein’s statements in the article are relevant and incriminating, asserting that he “chose to tell his side of the story to the Times, and ended up making on-the-record statements that are relevant and incriminating.” ([news.bloombergtax.com](https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/tom-goldsteins-nyt-story-should-be-evidence-prosecutors-say?utm_source=openai))
Goldstein’s defense contends that the article’s content is prejudicial and lacks the necessary context for a fair trial. They emphasize that statements made in a journalistic setting may not accurately reflect the complexities of the legal issues at hand.
This case has garnered significant attention due to Goldstein’s stature in the legal community and the broader implications for the intersection of personal conduct and professional responsibilities. The trial continues to unfold, with the admissibility of media content as evidence remaining a focal point in legal discussions.