Controversy Surrounds Justice Jackson’s Comments During Supreme Court Hearing
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stirred up some controversy on Wednesday by referencing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during oral arguments. Her comments were meant to illustrate how the government might address discrimination, but they caught fire on social media. Some critics reacted by accusing her of equating black voters with disabled individuals.
This discussion unfolded over nearly three hours in the case of Louisiana v. Calais. The case focused on whether states are required to consider race when redistricting, based on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Jackson’s comments came after Justice Elena Kagan, who was a previous attorney for Louisiana, asked about the government’s responsibilities to provide remedies for discrimination as outlined in the 14th and 15th Amendments. She also inquired about whether intent should be a factor.
“Returning to the topic of discriminatory intent,” Jackson remarked, “the notion of taking corrective action even in the absence of malicious intent isn’t exactly new in civil rights law. A prime example would be something like the ADA.”
Jackson elaborated, explaining that the ADA was enacted in a time when individuals with disabilities generally faced significant barriers to access. “In effect, it was discriminatory because these individuals couldn’t enter certain buildings. It doesn’t really matter whether the builder or owner intended to exclude them. That’s irrelevant,” she said.
She further asserted, “Congress made it clear that facilities should be accessible to people with disabilities whenever possible. I genuinely don’t understand why that’s not the case here.”
Jackson also pointed out that the essence of Title II suggests that the government is “responding to the ongoing outcomes of both past and present decisions that negatively affect minorities.” She ventured into a theory suggesting that “minorities ought to have equal access to the voting system, right?”
The attorney representing Louisiana quickly interjected, arguing, “The remedies under ADA and similar laws are unconventional.” Jackson acknowledged this, saying, “I agree with you on that point.”
The lawyer continued, pointing out, “If the issue of inaccessibility is linked to race, are you basically saying it’s unfortunate when there isn’t a race-related solution?”
Jackson’s comments received notable backlash on social media, leading to speculation that her remarks implied that black voters and other minorities are analogous to disabled individuals. However, her statements weren’t isolated or new within the context of Supreme Court discussions.
In fact, she referenced the 2021 case Allen v. Milligan, wherein the term “disabled” was used in connection with race-based zoning and intent issues in Alabama. Jackson commented, “In that case, the Supreme Court mentioned the term disabled, highlighting that these processes aren’t equitably open.”
She concluded by questioning the necessity of intent in this context: “I don’t see why it should matter whether the state meant it or not. Congress is essentially saying if that’s the situation, we must address it since Article II provides the necessary tools for that.”
As the court’s conservative majority seems set to potentially undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the extent of any changes remains uncertain.
