- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has been sitting on the Supreme Court for just over two months.
- She dominated the oral argument and drew attention from left and right.
- One academic said, “I’ve never actually seen someone so engaged outside the gate.
On the first day of his Supreme Court term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spoke up as a lawyer was giving closing arguments.
“Attorney, would you like to speak to the attorney created for the Sacketts property,” Jackson began asking during a major environmental lawsuit held Oct. 3.
Courts, in modern practice, usually reserve time for lawyers to deliver final words without interruption. But the latest judge didn’t seem to know that rule, and he went on to ask four more questions. The back and forth ended when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts intervened.
“I’ll give you an extra minute for your counterargument,” he told his lawyer.
The scene represents a learning moment for Jackson on his first day on the bench. But it also revealed how quickly and comfortably Jackson is jumping into his new job. This is the rhythm she has maintained over the past few months.
In the short time since his debut, Jackson dominated the oral argument, became the focus of numerous media columns, published his first two dissenting opinions, and received praise from the left and criticism from the right. Court watchers say it’s rare for a newcomer to speak out so loudly and draw so much attention at the beginning of his term.
Whether Jackson’s presence will change the court and its decision-making remains to be seen. But in the meantime, Jackson seems to be breaking new ground, breaking barriers as the first black woman in court.
“It’s unique. I’ve never actually seen someone so committed outside the gate,” Adam Feldman, a Supreme Court scholar and author of the blog Empirical SCOTUS, told Insider. Told.
jackson speech time
Jackson has been in the spotlight because of how much he has spoken off the bench so far. Feldman, who tracked that data, found that Jackson spoke his 11,003 words in his first eight oral arguments on the term. The runner-up, Liberal Judge Sonia Sotomayor, spoke less than half that amount.
During the same period, newly appointed judges on both sides of the ideological spectrum were much quieter than Jackson. Sotomayor spoke slightly less than that. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch each said he spoke less than 3,000 words.
“It’s rare that a judge starts out so comfortable. There’s usually an acclimation period. We’ve seen it with just about everyone else on the court,” Feldman explained the so-called freshman effect. did. Judges begin to speak with confidence. The more time they spend on the bench, the more ideological they become.
But that’s not the case with Jackson, who has already shown a willingness to wield the mic for long. did.
“She’s not just asking questions, she’s setting what the historical context is,” Feldman said.
Consider the Merrill v. Milligan major voting rights case currently being fought in court. The controversy concerns the map of Congress redrawn in 2021 by Alabama’s Republican-led legislature, where a lower court ruled voting rights, a landmark 1965 law prohibiting vote discrimination based on race. It dismissed it as possibly violating the law. But Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was legal and race-neutral.
“Why are you assuming it’s a race-neutral plan?” Jackson asked Alabama during oral arguments on Oct. We are talking about the situation where
The latest judge has repeatedly questioned Alabama’s position, saying the Fourteenth Amendment adopted in 1868 to establish equal protection for all citizens runs counter to the Voting Rights Act. Jackson pushed back.
The drafters of the 14th Amendment “wanted to ensure that those who had been discriminated against, the freedmen during Reconstruction, were actually equal to everyone else in society,” Jackson said. . “It’s not race-neutral or race-blind.”
Legal progressives cheered Jackson’s interpretation. She relied on the language of her constitution to make her case, they said, challenging a conservative judicial philosophy known as originalism.
“It’s been a long time since different visions of the Constitution were presented powerfully and openly in court,” Elizabeth Widra, director of the pro-progressive Center for Constitutional Accountability, told an insider.
It’s not surprising that Jackson, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, shared what could be considered a liberal view of the law. is made.
“In some ways, this just reflects the fact that she’s probably the most qualified and experienced new justice we’ve seen in a long time,” said Widra. does not say it as a criticism of other judges.”
6 to 3 conservative majority
Oral argument allows the judge to ask questions and, in some cases, to help make decisions about the case. Lawyers try to fill in the blanks about the uncertainties judges may have.
But the debate is also the first time judges have an opportunity to hear their colleagues’ thoughts on the controversy. In other words, the judge is talking to each other the same way he is talking to the defender in front of him.
Some courtroom observers say that oral argument can be an opportunity for judges to sway the thinking of their colleagues, but that doesn’t happen often. But they say they may be determined.
As a member of the liberal faction, Jackson’s questioning may not move conservative judge votes or make a difference in court decisions this term. The faction has recently passed a number of historic rulings that have swayed the country to the right, and will likely continue to do so.
“I think Jackson talking a lot is a waste of time. I mean, I don’t really care,” Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, told Insider. It’s nice to count the number of words she says, but it’s not very important.Let’s see how many votes she gets.I think that’s a much more important metric.”
Nonetheless, there is always the problem of unclear ideological lines. That appeared to happen when a judge heard the Moore v. Harper case on his December 7th.
Besides the three liberal justices, some conservatives seemed skeptical of the claims of the North Carolina Republicans. Republican lawmakers in North Carolina argued that the state legislature has the power to draw ballot maps and enact election laws without the oversight of state courts.
During the three-hour oral argument, Jackson frequently threw cold water on the idea.
Jackson also voiced her concerns, which were echoed by lawyers arguing on the other side of the controversy.
“What worries me a little is the proposal that if the legislature is exercising legislative power in this context, it need not abide by the state constitutional restrictions on that power,” she said.
“That’s 100% correct, Judge Jackson,” the attorney replied.
At times, Jackson looked around at his colleagues on the bench, seeming to make sure they were listening.
“She spoke for a long time and got into history. It was just as important for her to make a statement, so I think it was there, as was trying to elicit a reaction,” Feldman said. Said.
The court has yet to issue a ruling this term. But whatever it is, legal observers say Jackson’s voice in court has meaning and should be heeded.
“Even if, due to the current structure of the courts, she does not necessarily change the outcome in a particular case, having a brilliant and dedicated legal scholar like her on the bench enhances the quality of trials. “It’s important that the American public understands that there are different visions of what constitutional equality and democracy mean.”
And “even if her vision is to the contrary now, it doesn’t mean it will be true forever,” she added. We might get a majority.”