Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Supreme Court risks being viewed as political after its voting rights decision involving Louisiana redistricting, as she pointed to public trust at historic lows and renewed scrutiny of the court’s role.
WASHINGTON — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not mince words on Monday as she stepped out of a landmark voting rights fight and into a public debate about how the court is perceived.
She said the Supreme Court risks being seen as political after the court’s decision that allowed Louisiana to move quickly to use new maps, even after the justices struck down a majority-Black district and weakened the Voting Rights Act.
Speaking at a talk before the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C., Jackson framed the stakes in stark terms: “Public confidence is really all the judiciary has.”
She followed with a warning aimed at the institution itself. “Everyone believes the court system is outside the political sphere. I think that means it’s incumbent on us to do things, to act in ways that shore up public confidence,” she said.
Her comments landed amid wider alarm about public trust in the Supreme Court. Polling has shown trust in the court system at historic lows in recent years. Chief Justice John Roberts has also separately complained about the perception that the justices are “political actors.”
Jackson’s remarks came after she wrote a solo dissent from the Louisiana-related decision. The ruling permitted Louisiana to proceed quickly with new district maps after the court had struck down a majority-Black district and weakened the Voting Rights Act.
She has become a frequent dissenter from the conservative majority’s voting and election decisions. In one earlier dispute, she issued a solo dissent from an order allowing Louisiana to use new maps even though early voting had already begun.
Jackson said the court had “spawned chaos” during what has become a fierce nationwide redistricting battle. Her focus was not only on the outcome, but on what the process has done to elections already in motion.
Three of her conservative colleagues on the court responded sharply to her public criticism. They called Jackson’s comments “baseless” and said accusations of partisanship aren’t justified. Their counter was that the alternative to allowing the election under the challenged maps was to permit an election under a map found to be unconstitutional.
The argument playing out in the courtroom—about what can be used, when, and under which legal standards—was now spilling into public view, with Jackson insisting confidence, not just procedure, is what keeps the judiciary standing in the public mind.
Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court voting rights Louisiana redistricting Voting Rights Act public confidence John Roberts American Law Institute redistricting battle