Jackson Makes WAVES in SCOTUS – Everyone’s MAD

The Supreme Court’s youngest liberal justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is managing to irritate almost everyone on the bench—yes, even her own fellow liberals—by issuing a record number of solo, sharply worded dissents that seem to be more about grandstanding than jurisprudence.

At a Glance

• Ketanji Brown Jackson has delivered more solo dissents than any other justice this term, often standing alone—even among liberals.
• Her fiery dissents and frequent public commentary have drawn public and internal criticism for blurring the line between legal reasoning and political activism.
• Other justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, are increasingly distancing themselves from Jackson’s approach.
• Jackson’s style is fueling debate over the proper role of Supreme Court dissents in an era of sharp ideological division.

Justice Jackson’s Dissents Stir Unrest on the Supreme Court

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wasted no time this term, authoring more dissents than any other justice—often going it alone. From the moment she joined the bench in 2022, Jackson has demonstrated a willingness to break not only with the conservative majority but also with her own liberal colleagues, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. This solo streak has become unmistakable in the 2024–2025 term, as she’s penned dissent after dissent, each more pointed and public-facing than the last. Her writing, described by legal commentators as “direct” and “urgent,” warns of “existential threats” to American democracy and the rule of law. Yet, the frequency and tone of her dissents have become a source of visible irritation, not just for conservative justices but also for the liberal block, who increasingly leave her to stand on her own island.

Jackson’s dissents are not just frequent—they’re lengthy and often delivered with a rhetorical flourish. In a recent dissent opposing the Trump administration’s federal workforce reductions, neither Sotomayor nor Kagan joined her. In another case, Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, accused Jackson of advancing a position “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent.” The justices’ body language and brisk responses during oral arguments suggest that Jackson’s approach is wearing thin even among the Court’s liberals. Kagan, for instance, has chosen to write her own separate dissents or side with the majority, leaving Jackson increasingly isolated.

Rhetoric or Reasoning? Dissent as Public Performance

Jackson’s supporters argue that her dissents play an essential role in highlighting what they see as dangerous shifts in the Court’s direction, especially on issues like executive authority, civil rights, and the limits of federal power. Law professors and commentators note the historic significance of her presence as the Court’s first Black woman justice, suggesting her words may carry added symbolic weight for future generations. Jackson herself has made it clear that she sees her dissents as a form of “expression”—an opportunity to “tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues.” She has stated in public forums that the “state of our democracy” keeps her up at night and that she feels a duty to use her voice to sound the alarm.

Yet, legal scholars and some colleagues worry that Jackson is turning judicial opinions into “judicial op-eds,” as George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley puts it, blurring the traditional distinction between legal analysis and personal commentary. The sheer volume and tone of Jackson’s output—she authored 24 opinions this term, with a record number of solo dissents—are unprecedented for a junior justice. This approach, her critics argue, risks undermining the perceived impartiality of the Court and eroding the norms of judicial collegiality that have historically kept internal disagreements from turning into public spectacle.

Implications for the Court and the Nation

Jackson’s dissents are reverberating far beyond the marble halls of the Supreme Court. Her warnings about “existential threats” to democracy and the rule of law have become rallying cries for activists and advocacy groups on the left. At the same time, her breakneck pace and confrontational tone are fueling concerns among conservatives, centrists, and some moderate liberals about the politicization of the judiciary. The fact that Jackson is in the majority only 72% of the time—compared to Kagan’s 83%—reflects how often she is willing to be the lone voice of dissent, even when it means breaking with her own side.

The broader legal community is divided on whether Jackson’s approach will ultimately strengthen or weaken the Court’s legitimacy. Some see her as a necessary counterweight in an era of conservative dominance; others fear she is setting a precedent for future justices to use their opinions as political platforms. As the Court continues to grapple with contentious issues and the country remains sharply polarized, Jackson’s solo stand is likely to fuel continued debate about the proper role of dissent—and the responsibilities of those who wield the Supreme Court’s pen.

Sources:

Axios: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Democracy Dissents

Spectrum News: SCOTUS Ketanji Brown Jackson Discussion

CBS News: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson State of Democracy

Capital B: KBJ Supreme Court Dissents