Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, since her appointment by President Joe Biden, has adopted a jurisprudential approach that has drawn significant attention and criticism. Her tendency towards issuing sole dissents and employing strong rhetoric has not only elicited sharp responses from her conservative colleagues but also from some of her liberal counterparts. This internal tension was further amplified this week by a pointed rebuke from Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Background of the Louisiana v. Callais Case
The core issue revolves around the finalization of the court’s opinion in Louisiana v. Callais. In this case, the court ruled 6-3, asserting that racial gerrymandering is impermissible. While the decision upheld the use of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to prohibit intentional racial discrimination in the creation of voting districts, it also declared many existing districts unconstitutional.
The article suggests that the delay in finalizing this opinion was driven by partisan motives aimed at protecting Democratic seats in the upcoming midterm elections. It questions why states should not be compelled to ensure voters have representatives chosen without racial discrimination, especially if current districts are deemed unconstitutional.
Concerns Over Opinion Delay and Judicial Tensions
The extended delay in releasing the Callais opinion, particularly after the case had been reargued, raised eyebrows. Reports of a confrontation between Justice Elena Kagan and retired Justice Stephen Breyer over the release of dissents in the Dobbs case were cited, with Breyer reportedly agreeing with Chief Justice John Roberts that the conservative justices faced increased threats due to such delays. Kagan allegedly advocated for further postponement.
In the Callais decision, the delay was deemed peculiar given the clear 6-3 majority and minimal internal disagreement. Despite this, the delay has created significant challenges for states needing to redraw maps and adjust election schedules, with some moving to postpone primaries or redraw districts under tight deadlines.
Justice Jackson’s Dissent and Alito’s Rebuttal
Justice Jackson’s solo dissent argued for the preservation of the challenged, unconstitutional districts for the current election cycle, a move seen as an attempt to safeguard Democratic seats. Notably, neither Justice Kagan nor Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson in this specific dissent, despite having dissented from the Callais decision itself.
Jackson’s choice of language in her dissent drew sharp criticism. She described the court’s ruling as having “spawned chaos” and suggested a “strong political undercurrent” and an “appearance of partiality” in the court’s actions, implying that the court was effectively endorsing Louisiana’s attempt to pause the election to implement a new map.
Justice Alito responded forcefully, dismissing Jackson’s reliance on procedural waiting periods as a “trivial” objection that prioritized form over substance. He characterized her dissent as lacking restraint, making “baseless and insulting” claims, and particularly objected to the charge that her colleagues were engaging in an “unprincipled use of power,” deeming it a “groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”
Implications for Supreme Court Packing
The author posits that Justice Jackson’s jurisprudence and her role in such contentious dissents make her a model for Democrats advocating to pack the Supreme Court. The article suggests that her approach fuels the confidence of those who believe expanding the court would secure lasting political control, citing Jackson’s own statements about using her opinions to express her views on issues, which some colleagues find costly for the court’s standing.
