The United States Supreme Court’s legitimacy depends upon maintaining a black box around its decisions, distancing itself from the public to prove its independence. Experts fill this gap, traditionally translating Court happenings for the public in a reverent manner that reinforces its image. However, a new group of legal journalists, professors, and practitioners on Twitter upends these norms. I conduct a virtual ethnography of this new legal community which I call the “court watchers.” After 6 months of Twitter monitoring and 11 interviews, I find that court watchers reframe the legitimacy of the Court through their discourse, uncovering that the justices “have no robes.” Expertise and irreverence combine to allow watchers to push past traditional deference and acknowledge an unspoken understanding of the Court’s processes. By refusing to support the pretense that the Court is separate from politics, watchers can advocate for procedural reforms to create a truly legitimate court.