“I feel like there’s a great opportunity,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson mentioned during a recent interview. She articulated a sense of liberation since joining the Supreme Court, allowing her to express her opinions more openly.
Jackson’s newfound freedom has raised eyebrows among her colleagues, especially as she issues unusually critical opinions. Recently, she strongly reacted when another justice overturned a significant injunction that had prevented the Trump administration from cutting approximately $783 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health.
In her dissent, Jackson didn’t hold back. She criticized her peers, likening their legal reasoning to “Calvinball jurisprudence,” a term referencing a game with no fixed rules. She noted the lack of consistency, suggesting that the only consistent element seemed to be their control over Trump-related cases.
This irony hasn’t escaped those observing her unique and sometimes controversial approach to the law. Jackson accused her fellow justices of making arbitrary decisions, accusing them of rigidity while appearing to embody the very flexibility she criticized. It’s puzzling how she lambasted her colleagues for what she deemed a lack of integrity and empathy.
As Jackson puts it, quoting the character Calvin, “It’s not a bad problem, so you can’t add guilt to make it even worse.”
Her recent opinions reflect a shift away from the usual decorum traditionally observed among justices. Her colleagues seem increasingly wary, with Jackson expressing frustration that neither Sonia Sotomayor nor Elena Kagan would align with her viewpoints. In fact, she has openly questioned the decisions made by her liberal counterparts.
Take the case of Stanley vs. Sanford City. In that instance, Jackson and Neil Gorsuch were at odds regarding a retired firefighter seeking to sue over alleged discrimination. The majority, including Kagan, rejected the firefighter’s claims, ruling that the law required him to demonstrate his qualifications for the position he felt he was unfairly denied. This firefighter, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease, had retired early due to his health.
Jackson expressed her outrage that Stanley wasn’t allowed to sue for a role he was never qualified for. She criticized the reliance on textualism, suggesting it obscured underlying biases. This was particularly striking given that Kagan, who sided with the majority, is also known for her textualist approach.
Gorsuch called out Jackson for seemingly neglecting legal texts to achieve favorable outcomes in particular cases. Essentially, she was playing a game similar to Calvinball, where the rules change to suit the situation.
Jackson persisted in her pointed critiques, especially in the case of Trump v. In Casa, where the Court was addressing blanket injunctions from lower courts against administrative agencies. In her dissent, she bemoaned that neither Sotomayor nor Kagan joined her critique.
She accused her peers of blindly adhering to a “king’s system of rule,” urging that they seemed too caught up in self-serving discussions. This led to heightened tensions, particularly with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who remarked that Jackson’s views on the judiciary risked alienating even the staunchest advocates of judicial authority.
Barrett pointed out, “We don’t adhere to Justice Jackson’s arguments, which clash with established precedents and the Constitution.” Her comment spoke volumes.
Jackson has come under fire for making questionable claims regarding affirmative action and its implications in higher education.
Overall, Jackson’s judicial style seems increasingly detached from constitutional principles. While she remains a beloved figure among progressive law students, her methods have drawn criticism for lacking restraint.
It’s clear that Jackson has the potential to leave a significant impact on the Court, but this “great opportunity” she refers to might be one she needs to navigate with more caution. Otherwise, she might resonate with Calvin’s lament: “I think my life is much easier.”
