Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court 'Fans the Flames'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a warning about the nation's highest court in her latest dissent over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'s access to Social Security systems.
Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office email for comment.
Why It Matters
Jackson, the newest justice on the bench, warned that conservative justices are rushing to assist President Donald Trump's administration in the ruling handed down last week. Her warning comes as public trust in the Supreme Court remains low—the Pew Research Center found in August 2024 that a majority of American—51 percent—view the court unfavorably, while only 47 percent view the court favorably. Until 2022, Americans viewed the court favorably for decades.
What to Know
The court allowed DOGE, the task force aimed at cutting federal spending, to gain access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records last Friday. The relief came after U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander blocked the task force from gaining access to the systems over concerns about privacy implications.
The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Jackson raising concerns about the court's ruling. When deciding questions like whether to grant or block an order issued by a lower court, the court assesses several factors including whether the applicant would face irreparable harm by allowing the stay to continue.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022.
MANDEL NGAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the government did not substantiate its stay request "by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm" if the court allowed the block to stay in place awaiting a final verdict.
Jackson said the only "urgency" underlying the application is the "mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes."
"That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks," Jackson wrote. "But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them."
Jackson is "clearly expressing her frustration with the use of the shadow docket to make public policy, something the Court's conservatives have been increasingly willing to do," Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek.
"Public trust in the Court has fallen significantly in recent years, and Justice Jackson is likely linking the decline in public support for the Court to the growth in the use of the shadow docket," Collins said.
Jackson issued a similar warning in the case Noem v. Doe in May.
The case dealt with whether the administration could end a program giving residency to several countries facing domestic turmoil. She wrote the court "botched" its assessment and required "next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm."
What People Are Saying
Collins told Newsweek: "I think Justice Jackson's interpretation that the Court is rushing to side with the Trump Administration is a reasonable read of things. However, this probably has more to do with ideological alignment with the goals of the Trump Administration than with a particular affinity for President Trump. For instance, the Court's conservatives also sided with the Trump Administration in a case that would have required DOGE to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests."
SSA Commissioner Bisignano to Newsweek via X last Friday: "The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries."
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote on X on Friday: "MAJOR UPDATE: The Supreme Court just handed DOGE the keys to all the sensitive personal information Social Security has on file — your income, benefits, health records, and more. Why do Donald Trump and his cronies need access to millions of Americans' private data? It's absurd."
What Happens Next
Several pieces of Trump's agenda are facing legal battles, and the Supreme Court will continue playing a major role in determining whether his policies are constitutional or not moving forward. This has major implications for economic, immigration and social policy moving forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
38 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats target farmers on Trump's DOGE cuts
Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) will hold a "shadow hearing" Thursday to draw a direct link between President Trump's plans to cut foreign assistance and the farmers that sell their crops to the programs. Why it matters: Democrats are looking for ways to make Trump's DOGE and budget plans uncomfortable for farm state Republicans and want to appeal directly to their constituents. The Trump administration has called for deep spending reductions for international food programs run by the United States Agency for International Development and the Department of Agriculture. Those programs buy agricultural products from U.S. farmers to the tune of $2 billion a year, according to Shaheen. Some farm state Republicans have questioned administration st officials about programs like Food for Peace. Zoom out: Democrats are trying to broaden their case against the Trump administration's budget, which will receive its first official vote this week, when the House brings up Trump's rescissions package, which cuts funding for NPR, PBS and USAID. Zoom in: On Thursday, Shaheen, the ranking member on the foreign relations committee, and Klobuchar, the ranking member of the agriculture subcommittee on nutrition and forestry will host a group of experts to detail the effect of the cuts to foreign aid on U.S. farmers.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vows to "HIT" any protester who spits on police. He pardoned those who did far worse on Jan. 6
In one of his first acts of his second term as president, Donald Trumppardoned hundreds of people who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to try to keep him in office, including those who beat police officers. On Monday, Trump posted a warning on social media to those demonstrating in Los Angeles against his immigration crackdown and confronting police and members of the National Guard he had deployed: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' The discrepancy of Trump's response to the two disturbances — pardoning rioters who beat police on Jan. 6, which he called 'a beautiful day,' while condemning violence against law enforcement in Los Angeles — illustrates how the president expects his enemies to be held to different standards than his supporters. 'Trump's behavior makes clear that he only values the rule of law and the people who enforce it when it's to his political advantage,' said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. Trump pardoned more than 1,000 people who tried to halt the transfer of power on that day in 2021, when about 140 officers were injured. The former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, called it 'likely the largest single day mass assault of law enforcement ' in American history. Trump's pardon covered people convicted of attacking police with flagpoles, a hockey stick and a crutch. Many of the assaults were captured on surveillance or body camera footage that showed rioters engaging in hand-to-hand combat with police as officers desperately fought to beat back the angry crowd. While some who were pardoned were convicted of nonviolent crimes, Trump pardoned at least 276 defendants who were convicted of assault charges, according to an Associated Press review of court records. Nearly 300 others had their pending charges dismissed as a result of Trump's sweeping act of clemency. Roughly 180 of the defendants were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement or obstructing officers during a civil disorder. 'They were extremely violent, and they have been treated as if their crimes were nothing, and now the president is trying to use the perception of violence by some protesters as an excuse to crack some heads,' said Mike Romano, who was a deputy chief of the section of the U.S. Attorney's office that prosecuted those involved in the Capitol siege. A White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, defended the president's response: 'President Trump was elected to secure the border, equip federal officials with the tools to execute this plan, and restore law and order.' Trump has long planned to use civil unrest as an opportunity to invoke broad presidential powers, and he seemed poised to do just that on Monday as he activated a battalion of U.S. Marines to support the presence of the National Guard. He mobilized the Guard on Saturday over the opposition of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. The Guard was last sent to Los Angeles by a president during the Rodney King riots in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act. Those riots were significantly more violent and widespread than the current protests in Los Angeles, which were largely confined to a stretch of downtown, a relatively small patch in a city of 469 square miles and nearly 4 million people. The current demonstrations were sparked by a confrontation Saturday in the city of Paramount, southeast of downtown Los Angeles, where federal agents were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office. California officials, who are largely Democrats, argued that Trump is trying to create more chaos to expand his power. Newsom, whom Trump suggested should be arrested, called the president's acts 'authoritarian.' But even Rick Caruso, a prominent Los Angeles Republican and former mayoral candidate, posted on the social media site X that the president should not have called in the National Guard. Protests escalated after the Guard arrived, with demonstrators blockading a downtown freeway. Some some set multiple self-driving cars on fire and pelted Los Angeles police with debris and fireworks. Romano said he worried that Trump's double standard on how demonstrators should treat law enforcement will weaken the position of police in American society. He recalled that, during the Capitol attack, many rioters thought police should let them into the building because they had supported law enforcement's crackdown on anti-police demonstrations after George Floyd was murdered in 2020. That sort of 'transactional' approach Trump advocates is toxic, Romano said. 'We need to expect law enforcement are doing their jobs properly,' he said. Believing they just cater to the president 'is going to undermine public trust in law enforcement.' ___ Associated Press writers Michael Kunzleman and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again
The horrifying weekend scenes in Los Angeles — National Guard on the streets, the governor of California threatening to sue the president of the United States for breaching state sovereignty, vehicles set on fire, attacks on law enforcement officers, ordinary people getting hurt, kids seeing all kinds of horrors from people they have been taught to trust — were deeply disturbing to the point where we wondered how on God's green earth this country can hold it together for three-and-a-half more years of this level of presidential overreach, this amount of hatred and division. But we do know this. We sure don't want to see any kind of repeat of those scenes in Chicago. Everyone had better pick their words carefully. Nobody can argue that Donald Trump, as president of the United States, does not have the authority to deport those who crossed the border without authorization and who have received due process in a court of law. Nobody can argue that he did not disclose his intention to do so during the presidential campaign. Nobody who believes in the rule of law can say that federal agents should be physically prevented from following their orders (withholding cooperation is something entirely different). And nobody can say that the Trump administration is the first to remove such people. But the brute nature of the methodology, the scale of the operation and the horrifying accompanying theatrics should shock every American, even those who consider themselves part of the MAGA movement. They supposedly signed up for American greatness, not abject cruelty. This is the danger of a fundamentally performative president, a leader for whom the political benefits of calling in the National Guard clearly outranks the far greater risks, which is that such a decision destabilizes a city and forces everyone into ever more extreme positions. The scorched earth rhetoric from federal officials has been like something out of dystopian fiction. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted on social media that 'this is a fight to save civilization.' On the contrary, Mr. Miller. His ultimate boss, Trump, said 'a once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals,' which is so much balderdash, mere red-meat language designed for political purposes and not effective immigration policy, which requires disincentives, sure, but also nuance, complexity and a sense of the historical realities. There was a mandate from the American people for securing the border, deporting those who break or have broken the law and for fixing immigration. There was no mandate for brutality. We lay some of the blame for what happened in Los Angeles this weekend on both political parties, given that it is at least in part a consequence of their collective failure to pass any kind of comprehensive immigration reform that would have secured the borders, prevented overwhelming numbers of unauthorized folks entering and offered a fair and compassionate solution for the many people here without legal permission who have lived productive U.S. for years. That's on Democrats, who allowed the border to get out of control during the first part of the Biden administration, as well as Republicans. Many left-wing Democrats came to favor de facto open borders over the past several years, or at least no criminal-style enforcements of immigration violations, and Democrats knew they could not get that past a plurality of Americans in a general election. Rather than confront that internal division and reach a compromise, they punted for years. By the time Trump had total fealty from the Republican Party and could (and did) derail any such effort merely for his own political gain, it was too late. And now, with cruel, scorched-earth zealots in charge, we have the worst of all possible worlds for America's great cities and for many people whose only crime was trying to escape poverty and seeking out a better life. Anyone with even an ounce of common sense could see that Trump's apparent intention of deporting 12 million people in the country without legal permission, concentrated as they are in the core of America's biggest cities, is both unethical and impractical, given the above. The current rhetoric makes no distinction between recent arrivals and those who have lived here productively for years, and it paints otherwise law-abiding folks with the same brush as criminals, which is un-American. Leaders of blue cities and governors of blue states now find themselves caught somewhere between wanting to stop these deportations, over which they know they have no formal legal control, and their Welcoming Cities ordinances that forbid only cooperation with federal authorities. They, too, have political considerations to weigh. But they should not be the prime concern. Caught in the middle are local police departments, whose job is not to aid federal immigration officers but to maintain law and order. On the one hand, they have to deal with the tactics of an increasingly militarized ICE, as aided by the National Guard. They also have to deal with progressive politicians ready to accuse them of cooperation at every juncture. No, cops should not leave when protesters (or rioters, depending on your preferred politics) take to the streets. They have a different job to do, which is to keep our cities safe. So we are serving advance notice, Mr. President, that we don't want to see the National Guard, or the Marines, or any other branch of the U.S. military on the streets of Chicago. We urge you to dial down the rhetoric and the threats and we call on Democratic officials to do the same, which is not to say they should refrain from disagreeing with the manner of these actions. We urge those in your administration to negotiate with local officials, to treat everyone with dignity and respect, and to understand, for the love of God, that our children are watching and listening. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
