Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Dissent in Fourth Amendment Case

On Monday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed her disagreement with her fellow justices regarding a Fourth Amendment case about police stops, suggesting the Supreme Court majority was overstepping by revising lower courts’ decisions in Washington, D.C.

Jackson, appointed by President Biden, was the sole judge to address the D.C. Court of Appeals last year, which had deemed a police officer’s stop of a man in a vehicle inappropriate. The Supreme Court, however, overturned this ruling with an 8-2 vote, siding with the police. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a senior liberal, also diverged from the majority but did not join Jackson in her dissent, leaving Jackson somewhat isolated among the more liberal justices.

The Court’s ruling stressed that officers have a wide latitude when assessing the “totality of the circumstances” during stops. It pointed out that what may seem like minor individual facts can, when combined with suspicious behavior, lead to justified reasonable suspicion for a stop or arrest.

Jackson pushed back against this view, claiming it represents an unwarranted interference with how lower courts assess relevant facts.

In her dissent, she questioned, “I do not understand why such a factual determination should warrant correction by this court.” The case arose from an early morning dispatch in 2023 about a suspicious vehicle. Upon arrival, police saw two individuals flee, while others in the car began to slowly back out, leaving a door open. The D.C. attorney general defended the officers, asserting that all circumstances justified stopping the individual still inside the vehicle.

The unsigned opinion from the Supreme Court criticized the lower court for overlooking the fleeing individuals before the stop. Jackson argued that the D.C. Court of Appeals had appropriately assessed the facts to conclude that the stop was unreasonable.

A police attorney contended that the officers were justified in their actions, stating they had mere seconds to act and cited that shortly after the stop, they noticed a broken window and an altered ignition, proving the vehicle was stolen.

Jackson, well-known for advocating court involvement in broader constitutional issues, stressed in this instance the importance of judicial restraint.

She maintained that the lower court had rightly acknowledged the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, arguing that this case did not warrant such an unprecedented intervention.

“I don’t understand why this court would think it appropriate to intervene in this case, much less intervene immediately,” she said, expressing skepticism that the D.C. Court of Appeals had misinterpreted the Fourth Amendment’s situational analysis.