Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion regarding the ongoing tension among Supreme Court justices, particularly highlighted in the case Trump v. Kasa, Inc. This case involves injunctions that challenge the concept of birthright citizenship.
As I noted in a post on X, Justice Barrett authored the majority opinion, which indicates that Chief Justice Roberts chose her for this task. It seems to suggest that the other five justices have perhaps eased the reins on Barrett when it comes to her relationship with Justice Jackson. This decisive reprimand of the youngest member of the Court — who holds a distinctly different view on judicial responsibilities — would likely have been perceived quite differently had it come from another conservative justice.
It’s intriguing considering that Barrett, as another woman on the bench, delivered such a tough opinion towards Jackson, who has a shorter tenure. The language used was anything but calm, and the points made were pretty stark.
If Jackson seemed a bit out of her depth, there’s context to that. Many careers in law have similar trajectories, but typically, it’s unusual for someone to reach the Supreme Court without substantial appellate court experience first.
Looking back, Judge Elena Kagan came from an academic background, having held various positions within the DOJ in the Clinton era, including as U.S. Attorney General under Obama. She wrote extensively on legal topics and had a robust teaching career before her appointment. Another example is Judge Lewis Powell, who directly transitioned to the Supreme Court from private practice.
Now, about Jackson: she didn’t lack judicial experience, yet that experience doesn’t necessarily align with the decision-making style found within the Supreme Court. She graduated from Harvard, attended Harvard Law School, and held multiple significant legal positions, including a term as a federal public defender. Her judicial journey began in 2014 as a district judge, and she later moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals after her appointment by President Biden in 2021.
In the short time that Jackson has been a judge on the Court of Appeals, she produced merely two opinions. This indicates that Biden nominated someone with district court experience to join a high-level court, which operates quite differently.
The district courts are where federal trials occur, handling initial decisions in legal disputes. While district judges do have considerable authority, they often operate independently and run their dockets without being bound by the decisions of their peers. This can lead to mistakes in judgment, but as long as the trial is fair, such errors aren’t grounds for dismissal unless they lead to unfair outcomes.
Appeals courts focus on these errors, assessing whether they justify changing the original ruling. In contrast, the Supreme Court examines broader implications for future cases when reviewing decisions, aiming for a higher standard in terms of legal ramifications.
District judges often work closely with lawyers representing both sides during trials. Veteran attorneys know that the questions from district judges can be quite pointed and direct, but these inquiries tend to stay within the scope of the case in question, rather than considering wider impacts on future rulings.
Jackson is now serving her third term, and there’s a noticeable distinction between her approach and that of her fellow justices, likely influenced by her years as a district judge.
This disparity is echoed in her discussions with colleagues. While engaging in oral arguments, Jackson often presses for clarity in admissions or concessions, centering on case outcomes rather than broader implications.
Interestingly, Justice Alito engages in discussions similarly but speaks far less than Jackson, which sets her apart not just in terms of participation but also in the tone she brings to her arguments.
Her candid commentary about the Trump v. Kasa case reflects a deeper frustration, hinting at her inner debate on the loss of judicial power that district judges ordinarily wield. It paints a picture of a progressive mindset that yearns to champion what’s right, even amidst legal constraints.
