Ketanji Jackson, the Joe Biden-nominated Supreme Court justice who made her political agenda clear by aligning with LGBT activists and refusing to define “woman” during her confirmation hearings, has followed her leftist ideology in her written opinions, demanding birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and insisting that states he ordered to keep their race-based congressional districts.
But it’s the majority, whose members have routinely been agreeing on the meaning and impact of the Constitution in various cases, who are making the public think the court is partisan, she has charged anew.
Jackson repeatedly has billed herself as a star in American jurisprudence, boasting about her authority to tell people what she thinks in court decisions, distracting court watchers by her participation in a Broadway show, offering untoward condemnation of other justices and more.
Jackson now is warning that the majority on the court, nominated by multiple presidents over many years, is making the public think it’s partisan because of a recent ruling limiting one section of the Voting Rights Act.
The majority ruled that states do not have to set aside congressional districts for black voters to have a black representative in Congress.
The Daily Mail described her comments as a “stinging swipe” at conservative justice, as the tensions in the court atmosphere “exploded.”
She’s repeatedly gone public with demands that the rulings need to bend to her will since the Voting Rights Act decision came in a Louisiana case.
It essentially allowed Louisiana Republicans the power to redraw the congressional map and dismantle a majority-black district before the November midterms. And they are being allowed to do it right away, as the court made a decision not to withhold that ruling for a month.
“It is so important for the public to perceive us as neutral, nonpartisan,” Jackson claimed at a meeting of the American Law Institute in Washington Monday. “We know that public confidence is really all the judiciary has.”
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she disagreed with the move to immediately release a decision that sharply limits a key section of the Voting Rights Act, forgoing a typical 32-day waiting period.
She was the only justice to object to the move.…
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 19, 2026
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued another signature sole dissent to prevent states from applying the recent ruling barring racial gerrymandering. https://t.co/YLtOw2S0hU These dissents would preserve unconstitutional districts for the midterm elections…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 18, 2026
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday amplified her concern about a rare extra step the court took after its blockbuster decision limiting the Voting Rights Act, saying she fears the appearance of partisanship.
“My view was it would be a more neutral way to… pic.twitter.com/pbnAAz2eG9
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) May 19, 2026
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson amplified her concern about the appearance of partisanship in the court’s recent Voting Rights Act decision. https://t.co/IF44JiTcvg
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) May 19, 2026
Jackson continued, “It’s incumbent upon us to do things, to act in ways that shore up public confidence.”
It was just the latest blast Jackson has delivered to other justices, who have defended their rulings.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for example, said, “I think the casual reader about the Supreme Court or its decisions might have the impression we’re just kind of up there, politicians in robes. That’s not how the court functions.”
She said the criticism the court is politicized isn’t correct.
“We’re living in a very politically divided time. It’s harder for people to come together,” she said.
Jackson not only lashed out at a ruling lifting previous orders to have congressional districts based on race, she fumed over the court’s decision to release the ruling right away.
She claimed that was “unwarranted and unwise.’
Jackson’s diatribes in dissent have become so virulent that other justices openly are correcting and rebuking her.
In a response to her attack in the Louisiana case, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, charged, “The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered.”
He pointed out Jackson’s two stated reasons for keeping to a waiting period before releasing a decision are trivial and baseless.
Alito responded to Jackson’s claim the majority was “unprincipled” by saying that was a “groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”
“It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint,” he said.
Jackson, who was appointed by Biden in 2022, repeatedly has gone over the edge. In a presidential immunity case she fumed the court lit “a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance.”
This over a decision that a president could not be prosecuted for his official acts in office.
When the high court curtailed nationwide injunctions by low-level judges, she said it signaled “our collective demise.”
At that time, Justice Amy Barrett responded that Jackson’s opinion was “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
Jackson also claimed other justices are “overly sympathetic to corporate interests” and her extremism even has caused other liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, to leave Jackson to her own devices much of the time.
She has insisted the court “be really, really careful in this environment when we’re dealing with issues that have a political overlay. … It is so important for the public to perceive us as neutral, nonpartisan. We know that public confidence is really all the judiciary has.”
She’s also considered to be a key advocate for Democrat-driven plans to “pack” the court, simply adding four more justices – all leftist and liberal – who then could overrule the six-justice conservative majority now and give leftists what they want.
