Since her appointment by President Joe Biden, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has quickly developed a radical and chilling case law. Her frequent dissents and accusatory rhetoric have angered not only her conservative colleagues, but her liberal colleagues as well. This week, that tension intensified with a stinging rebuke from Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
At issue is the finalization of the court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, where the court ruled 6-3 to ban racial gerrymandering. The court reaffirmed the use of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to prohibit intentional racial discrimination in the design of voting districts, but effectively ruled that many districts are unconstitutional in their current form.
There is no reason why the decision should not be finalized, other than a blatantly partisan attempt to protect Democrats from losing seats in the midterm elections. If these districts are unconstitutional, why can’t states guarantee that voters receive representatives elected without racially discriminatory preferences?
That question is even more confusing given the long wait for this advice. Not only was the case argued again, but complaints about the delay in releasing the opinion increased.
MEDIA CONSUMPTION ABOUT THE HIGH COURT’S VOTING RIGHTS ACT DECISION IS IN COLLISION WITH REALITY
The complaints intensified after a recent book reported that Justice Elena Kagan had a vocal confrontation with her colleague, retired Justice Stephen Breyer, over his attempt to release the dissent in Dobbs after the opinion was leaked. Breyer reportedly agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts that the conservative justices were facing increasing death threats because of the delay. Kagan would like to further delay the release.
What’s even more chilling than Jackson’s jurisprudence is the fact that it is often cited as a model for Democrats seeking to seize the court with an immediate majority if they regain power.
In the Callais decision the delay was curious, as there were six solid majority votes and little division among opinions. The majority opinion’s references to Kagan’s dissent are relatively brief. Nevertheless, the delay has made it very difficult for states to implement changes. Some plan to postpone their primaries or draw new maps under extremely tight calendars.
Regardless of the delay, there is no apparent or principled reason to withhold the opinion protecting unconstitutional districts. The case has been pending for an unusually long time due to re-argumentation.
KAGAN SHOUTED SO LOUD AT LIBERAL ALLY AFTER DOBBS LEAK THE ‘WALL TRUDDE’, BOOK CLAIMS
In its one-paragraph order, the court acknowledged that the Supreme Court clerk normally waits 32 days after a decision before sending a copy of the opinion and judgment to the lower court. However, it noted that the defenders of the disputed districts had “not expressed any intention to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.” Conversely, the other parties pointed to the need for states to address the impact of the ruling in the approaching elections.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers a joint lecture, as part of the Flannery Lecture series, in the ceremonial courtroom of the U.S. Courthouse on March 9, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post)
Jackson stood alone in demanding that the unconstitutional districts be effectively retained for the purposes of this election – guaranteeing Democratic seats in the midterm elections that could be lost in non-racially discriminatory districts. Neither Kagan nor Justice Sonia Sotomayor would join her in the dissent, despite disagreeing with Callais’s own decision.
However, it was again her language that caught the attention of her colleagues.
JONATHAN TURLEY: JUSTICE JACKSON PLAYS PUNDIT TO MEET SCOTUS COLLEAGUES
Judge Jackson denounced the court’s ruling, saying it “has caused chaos in the state of Louisiana.” In an Orwellian twist, Jackson suggested others were playing politics as she tried to effectively protect unconstitutional Democratic districts. She suggested the case exposed “a strong political undercurrent.”
In perhaps the most insulting line, she told her colleagues that this case “is unfolding amid ongoing statewide elections, against the backdrop of a fierce redistricting battle between state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties.”
She further said that, rather than avoiding “the appearance of partisanship,” the court’s action “amounts to an endorsement of Louisiana’s haste to interrupt the ongoing election to approve a new map.”
JUSTICE BARRETT DEFENDS JACKSON JABS AS ‘GUARANTEED’ IN RARE PUBLIC APPEARANCE
Judge Alito had finally had enough. He noted that her appeal to the 32-day period was a “trivial” objection that placed form over substance, as no party had requested reconsideration. It would be pointless to wait 32 days, while the other parties had indicated that it was reasonable and urgent to complete the advice.
He chastised Jackson for dissent that “lacks restraint.” He denounced the dissent for making “baseless and offensive” claims. He particularly objected to the accusation that her colleagues engaged in “unprincipled use of power,” calling it “a baseless and completely irresponsible accusation.”
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
What’s even more chilling than Jackson’s jurisprudence is the fact that it is often cited as a model for Democrats seeking to seize the court with an immediate majority if they regain power. This and other judicial dissents from Jackson show why Democrats are so confident that packing the court will bring lasting control of the government.
Jackson recently told ABC News, “I have a great opportunity to tell people in my opinion how I think about the issues, and that’s what I’m trying to do.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
For some of her colleagues, that cathartic benefit in court comes at too high a price.
CLICK HERE TO JONATHAN TURLEY
