Justice Samuel Alito criticized Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for her dissent on a procedural order that allows Louisiana to redraw its unconstitutional congressional map before the May 16 primary elections. In an unusual move for such an opinion, he stated, “The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.”
Alito pointed out that Jackson’s dissent didn’t claim it was too late for the state legislature or the District Court to create a new constitutional map. Instead, he noted that her reasoning was weak. “One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting,” he added (RELATED: Supreme Court Clears Way For Louisiana To Redraw House Map Before 2026 Primaries). The disagreement revolves around whether the court’s order reflects an improper exertion of power, as Alito interpreted Jackson’s dissent. He emphasized that Sup. Ct. Rule 45.3, which typically enforces a 32-day waiting period before judgments are sent back to lower courts, has been ignored in many cases when both sides agree to it. In this instance, Louisiana’s representatives and the attorneys for Callais supported bypassing the waiting period, while only the attorneys for the Robinson appellants objected.
Jackson, appointed by former President Joe Biden and frequently criticized, argued that the court’s decision to deviate from Rule 45.3 effectively endorses Louisiana’s hasty attempt to pause elections for a new map. In her dissent, Jackson made several missteps in citing past opinions to argue that the issue of Louisiana’s redrawn map is separate from the court’s ruling on its unconstitutionality. She claimed this situation raises numerous legal and political questions independent of the Callais issue.
Even though she accused the court of engaging in a political power grab, Jackson provided scant evidence for her claims. This lack of substantial reasoning led her to be the sole dissenter in the decision, as justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor sided with their conservative colleagues. Alito responded to her queries, asking what principle the Court violated, emphasizing that the dissenting allegations were “groundless and utterly irresponsible.”
Since Jackson’s appointment in June 2022, she has faced strong criticism from her peers, including Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Following a previous dissent from Jackson regarding nationwide injunctions, five justices joined Barrett in chastising her for her approach. Jackson had argued that restrictions imposed by lower courts on these injunctions were “not only truly unfortunate, but also hubristic and senseless.” Her colleagues’ concerns seem to stem from her preference for rhetorical flourish over precedent-based arguments.
