Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Reveals What Keeps Her Up at Night
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told a group at an Indianapolis Bar Association event on Thursday that "the state of our democracy" is what keeps her up at night, CNN reports.
Newsweek reached out to the High Court on Thursday for comment via email.
Why It Matters
Jackson, the most recent nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court and the first by former President Joe Biden, has faced some criticism, most recently following her lone dissent in the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling on a case involving executive power over federal workforce layoffs during President Donald Trump's administration and another ruling on birthright citizenship.
What To Know
At the event on Thursday, Jackson spoke about her book Lovely One: A Memoir, and afterward took questions, one asking what keeps her up at night.
"I would say the state of our democracy," the justice responded, according to CNN. "I am really very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government."
Jackson did not mention Trump by name, CNN reports, but she has been outspoken against his administration in recent dissents.
"Instead of directing its attention and resources to fully litigating the merits of the challenge to its authority in the courts below, the Government rushed up the chain of review, seeking an emergency stay of the District Court's preliminary injunction from us," she argued in the federal workforce ruling this week.
Jackson was also asked by U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson at the event if she has ever been bothered by a majority opinion's response to a dissent, CNN reports.
"I have a very thick skin," Jackson replied. "My parents gave to me a sense of my own ability to write and to speak out and to say what I have to say and to not be really offended by other people saying what they have to say. I actually don't get my feelings hurt, what I do is I try to respond as effectively as I can in my writings."
Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks at the 2025 ESSENCE Festival of Culture on July 5 in New Orleans. (Photo byfor ESSENCE)
Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks at the 2025 ESSENCE Festival of Culture on July 5 in New Orleans. (Photo byfor ESSENCE)
What People Are Saying
Former George W. Bush adviser Scott Jennings, on CNN Wednesday night, talking about Jackson: "Apparently [she] has a fundamental disagreement with the rest of the court about what the role of a Supreme Court justice is."
"People from the ideological right and the ideological left on the court have had to put her in her place a couple of times here in this term. I would guess internally it's causing internal issues at the Supreme Court."
Ana Navarro, CNN senior political commentator, also on Wednesday: "And also listen, nobody puts baby in the corner, and nobody puts Ketanji in her place. She is a Supreme Court justice."
She continued, "No, that's not putting her in her place, that's called disagreement, that's called dissenting. It's called a disagreement in the Supreme Court, which is perfectly OK. And if you're expecting a melanated girl from South Florida to shut up and play nice and not ruffle feathers ... you seem to have an issue with it," she said in response to Jennings.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will enter its recess until its next term begins. Observers expect continued focus on the role of dissenting voices, especially Jackson's, as the court addresses future cases involving executive authority, federal power and constitutional interpretation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Oregon city at heart of Supreme Court homelessness ruling to ensure camping spaces under settlement
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon city at the heart of a major U.S. Supreme Court homelessness ruling has agreed to ensure camping spaces for at least 150 people as part of a settlement reached with a disability rights group that sued the city over its camping rules. Disability Rights Oregon, which sued Grants Pass in January, said Friday that it had reached a settlement agreement. The advocacy group accused the city of discriminating against people with disabilities and violating a state law requiring cities' camping regulations to be 'objectively reasonable.' 'This settlement represents a significant step forward in ensuring people with disabilities experiencing homelessness have places to rest, basic necessities like drinking water, and real opportunity to stabilize their lives,' Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of Disability Rights Oregon, said in a statement. Grants Pass Mayor Clint Scherf said in an email Tuesday that the city appreciates having reached an agreement and will 'continue to work toward effective measures to benefit all members of our community.' A copy of the settlement agreement showed the city signed off on it earlier this month. Josephine County Circuit Court Judge Sarah McGlaughlin issued a preliminary injunction in March blocking the city from enforcing its camping rules unless it increased capacity at city-approved sites for camping and ensured they are physically accessible to people with disabilities. City ordinances prohibit sleeping or leaving personal property in a park overnight in most cases. Those found in violation can be fined up to $50. The city said Friday on Facebook that law enforcement 'will begin noticing the parks, and occupants will have 72 hours to remove their belongings.' The city's website shows three 'designated resting locations' in the downtown area, near City Hall and the police station, where people can stay for four days before having to relocate. The time limit can be enforced unless disability accommodations are necessary, the city said on Facebook. At resting sites, individuals are limited to spaces that are 8 feet by 8 feet (2.4 meters by 2.4 meters), with buffers of 3 feet (0.9 meters) between spaces, as outlined in city code. Under the settlement, Grants Pass must ensure that at least 150 camping spaces are available in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the next 12 months. Drinking water and hand washing stations must be available on-site. The city must also provide $60,000 in grant funding to a nonprofit for homeless services. Grants Pass, a small city of about 40,000 along the Rogue River in the mountains of southern Oregon, has struggled for years to address the homelessness crisis and become emblematic of the national debate over how to deal with it. Its parks in particular became a flashpoint, with many of them becoming the site of encampments blighted by drug use and litter. Last June, in a case brought by the city, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that communities can ban sleeping outside and fine people for doing so, even when there are not enough shelter beds. After the high court ruling, Grants Pass banned camping on all city property except locations designated by the City Council, which established sites for the town's hundreds of homeless people in a bid to move them from the parks. Upon taking office in January, the new mayor and new council members moved to close the larger of the two sites, which housed roughly 120 tents, according to Disability Rights Oregon's complaint, which said the sites were frequently crowded with poor conditions and inaccessible to people with disabilities because of loose gravel. After the lawsuit was filed, the city reopened a second, smaller site. McGlaughin's order in March said the city had to increase capacity to what it had been before the larger site was closed. Homelessness increased 18% last year nationwide, driven mostly by a lack of affordable housing as well as devastating natural disasters and an increase in migrants in some areas.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas Rep. Collier sleeps on House floor to resist GOP redistricting push
Democratic state Rep. Nicole Collier slept on the floor of the Texas House on Monday night in protest of Republicans' ongoing push to redraw state maps. Earlier this month, many House Democrats left the state to delay a vote on a Republican redistricting plan aimed at creating additional GOP-leaning congressional districts. The push in Texas is part of a broader mid-decade redistricting trend encouraged by President Donald Trump and backed by the state's Republican leadership. The Texas initiative has prompted reactions nationwide, with both red and blue Governors saying they are prepared to redraw their states' legislative maps. Upon Texas Democrats' return to Austin this week, House Speaker Dustin Burrows imposed new rules: Democrats could leave the House chamber only with written permission and under the supervision of law enforcement until the legislature reconvenes Wednesday morning. According to a report from CNN, most of the Democratic legislators went along with the plan. They showed reporters confirmation that they were allowed to leave the state Capitol, calling their papers 'permission slips.' Collier refused to do the same. 'My constituents sent me to Austin to protect their voices and rights,' she said in a statement. 'I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts. My community is majority-minority, and they expect me to stand up for their representation. When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents — I won't just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination.' Collier shared a photo to social media, wearing a sleep mask and bonnet on the House floor. 'This was my night,' she captioned the post. U.S. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, likened the requirements placed on state Dems to a 'Jim Crow playbook.' 'As a former Texas State Rep., let me be clear: LOCKING Rep. Nicole Collier inside the chamber is beyond outrageous,' she wrote on X. 'Forcing elected officials to sign 'permission slips' and take police escorts to leave? That's not procedure. That's some old Jim Crow playbook. Texas Republicans have lost their damn minds.' Republican legislators blasted Collier's state Capitol sleepover, calling it a 'stunt' and a 'total waste and abuse of public resources.' The post Texas Rep. Collier sleeps on House floor to resist GOP redistricting push appeared first on
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Potential Trump Supreme Court pick rails against ‘cultural elites' in drag ban reversal dissent
There are no current vacancies on the Supreme Court. But the Donald Trump White House has said that it wants judges in the mold of the high court's two oldest justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. A new dissent that name-checks both justices is a reminder that one front-runner for any vacancy that emerges could be Judge James Ho, whom Trump previously appointed to a federal appeals court. In his dissent, Ho invoked conservative talking points, like transgender sports participation, and railed against 'cultural elites.' The case decided Monday concerned Spectrum WT, an LGBT+ student organization at West Texas A&M University. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit split 2-1 in ruling for the group that had raised a free speech claim. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump appointee of mifepristone case fame, denied the group a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the First Amendment didn't apply to the drag show. The appellate panel majority reversed the district judge, with George W. Bush appointee Leslie Southwick writing the opinion, joined by Clinton appointee James Dennis. Southwick wrote that Kacsmaryk 'erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.' The panel majority said the plaintiffs' drag show is protected constitutional expression. In his dissent, Ho argued that a 2010 Supreme Court precedent called Christian Legal Society (CLS) v. Martinez, which went against a student group that wanted to exclude gay people while receiving school funding, should've led the appellate panel to rule against the plaintiffs in this case. Writing that he disagrees with the CLS decision even as he's bound by it, Ho said he 'will not apply a different legal standard in this case, just because drag shows enjoy greater favor among cultural elites than the religious activities at issue in CLS.' Obviously, the majority did not explain its ruling that way. One of the ways it sought to distinguish this case from the CLS case was by writing, 'Instead of the significant interference with the right of expressive association that the Supreme Court permitted there, the university here was interfering with the expressive activity itself, the speech.' At any rate, one implication of Ho's dissent is that the majority did the untoward thing he valiantly refused to do: apply a double standard in service of some undefined 'cultural elites.' Lawyers and judges generally bolster their points by citing authorities, but Ho didn't do so there, nor did he explain which 'elites' he was talking about. Perhaps we are supposed to understand implicitly — and perhaps we do. Though one wonders how 'elite' is the group if it needs to wage a legal battle to put on a show? Ho's 'cultural elites' remark was just the beginning, however. He added to his dissent's culture-war complaints by positing that 'if university officials allow men to act as women in campus events like drag shows, they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well — like women's sports.' The judge conceded that drag shows and women's sports 'might seem, on first blush, to have little to do with one another.' But he proceeded to make the case, citing sources that included a book that worried, 'If we accept that people can change genders — or even if we don't but agree to be 'polite' and call a man 'she' — then why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to play women's sports or bathe naked in an all-women's space? Why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to enter women's abuse houses or be transferred to a women's prison? Why accept one lie and not the whole thing?' (To be clear, Ho included that full quote in his dissent.) He also leaned on Alito's dissent in the CLS case, which was joined by Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and the late Antonin Scalia. Ho separately cited Thomas' concurrence in the recent Skrmetti case approving a gender-affirming care ban for minors, specifically where Thomas noted 'several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class.' Ho used the justice's observation to bolster his point that 'judges should not blindly trust experts in education, anymore than we should in any other field.' It was the appeals court judge's latest display of his willingness — and apparent eagerness — to step into any vacancy that Thomas or Alito might one day leave. If such a vacancy emerges, then so does the prospect of encountering Ho's writings in Supreme Court opinions for decades to come. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
