Judge Jackson Critiques Supreme Court’s Recent Decisions

On Thursday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed strong criticism regarding “recent trends” in the Supreme Court, particularly those aligning with the Trump administration. She specifically highlighted concerns over decisions affecting national health grant funding.

Appointed by Biden, Jackson took her colleagues to task in her remarks on Shadowdocket, where quick preliminary rulings were generated amid numerous lawsuits faced by former President Trump. She remarked on the nature of these rulings as akin to a game of Calvinball—suggesting that the rules seemed flexible, or perhaps, non-existent. “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” she said, noting that there appeared to be two guiding principles instead of one.

Interestingly, a definition of Calvinball from the Oxford English Dictionary describes it as a way of manipulating rules for self-serving goals, which resonated with Jackson’s critique.

Why Judge Jackson Feels Out of Place on the Supreme Court

As the youngest member of the Court, Jackson remarked that the majority justices seemed to “bend” the rules to accommodate the Trump administration, citing a cancellation of a nearly $783 million grant by the NIH that didn’t reflect the administration’s priorities. Part of this grant aimed to support research on diversity, equity, and inclusion, with concerns that critical biomedical research could be jeopardized.

“Unfortunately, this decision has tangible implications for public health and the law,” Jackson stated, suggesting that the ruling only partially favored the Trump administration.

Judicial Actions on DEI Policies

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court allowed the NIH to cancel health grants not aligned with Trump’s priorities. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with three liberal justices, and in a separate ruling, he, along with Trump’s appointee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, maintained a block on an NIH directive regarding grants. This may complicate the NIH’s ability to rescind future grants.

The varying opinions from the justices totaled 36 pages, significantly longer than other emergency rulings, with Jackson’s critics making up a considerable portion of the dissent.

Law professor Jonathan Turley noted a rise in Jackson’s “rhetoric,” suggesting that her arguments sometimes portrayed her colleagues as straying from constitutional principles and democratic ideals.

In response, Barrett confronted Jackson, labeling her opinions as part of an “imperial judiciary” and suggesting that people should not dwell too much on the objections raised by her peers. Barrett also proposed that challenges to grants ought to be raised by recipients in Federal Claims Court, while affirming that federal courts in Massachusetts do hold power over NIH guidance on grants.

In Jackson’s view, the partial rejection of the Trump administration’s requests demonstrated a Court approach of “offering relief from harm” while circumventing proper judicial review.