Jackson warns – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says the Supreme Court was not careful enough when it sped up Louisiana’s bid to redraw congressional maps before the midterms. She argued the court should have followed its usual waiting period to avoid appearing political, point
By the time Louisiana asked the Supreme Court to move fast, election-year calendars were already ticking. On May 4. the court agreed—clearing the way for Louisiana to redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections after a blockbuster ruling only days earlier severely weakened the Voting Rights Act.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called that speed “really, really careful” grounds for concern. Speaking Monday at an event in Washington hosted by the American Law Institute, she said courts are “apolitical, not supposed to be issuing rulings that are in the political realm.”
“We have to be scrupulous about sticking to the principles and the rules that we apply in every case and not look as though we’re doing something different in this kind of context,” Jackson said.
Her criticism landed after a set of questions from US District Judge Richard Gergel about the Supreme Court’s decision on May 4. The question wasn’t simply whether Louisiana could redraw—after Louisiana won the larger case. it was pressing to do so quickly. Louisiana wanted the Supreme Court to bypass its usual month-long waiting period before finalizing its decision. driven by urgency to act ahead of the midterms.
The Supreme Court agreed in a one-paragraph order. It did so with little explanation and did not disclose how the court voted. Jackson, who is a member of the court’s liberal wing, was the only justice to note her dissent.
Jackson said Monday that her worry was less about the court’s intent and more about how the move would be perceived. She did not argue the decision was motivated by politics, but she returned to the need for neutrality in practice.
“I think we have to be very constrained,” she said. “My view was it would be a more neutral way to handle the matter to just stick with the rule that we always apply in situations like this.”
Late April’s Voting Rights Act decision has triggered a wave of redistricting across southern states. shifts that have benefited Republicans. It has also been expected to reduce the number of Black lawmakers in Congress. The voting-rights ruling. while long expected. arrived in the middle of a push by President Donald Trump to gain as much advantage as possible from redrawn maps. with the goal of keeping the GOP in control of the House next year.
Taken together. those facts help explain why Jackson pressed harder on the court’s timing and its departure from ordinary procedure. She said the court was not just moving a case forward—it was doing it through the emergency docket at a moment when the outcome was always likely to be read politically.
The junior justice’s remarks matched her written dissent after the May 4 order. Her earlier focus narrowed to perception: a court should stick to the same rules it applies elsewhere, especially in the kind of context where elections are at stake.
Justice Samuel Alito. a member of the court’s conservative wing. defended the Supreme Court’s decision and dismissed Jackson’s concerns. He rejected the idea that the court should avoid actions that could be criticized as partisan. In his view, what Jackson’s position implied was that the court should “never” risk criticism.
“What principle has the court violated?” Alito wrote in his opinion in the Louisiana emergency case. “The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”
Alito’s position was joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Jackson. who was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden in 2022. has been particularly sharp about the court’s approach to emergency cases during the Trump administration. That concern has surfaced in a public exchange in the same Louisiana emergency matter. where Alito criticized many of Jackson’s points as “insulting. ” “trivial” and “baseless.”.
On Monday, Jackson also broadened her critique beyond the Louisiana dispute. She said the court was undermining ordinary process in merits cases by “setting up this other lane of adjudication” on the emergency docket.
“It’s not doing, I think, the court, the lower courts, or our country a service with that kind of procedure,” she said.
Her remarks also echoed a lecture she gave at Yale earlier this year, where she warned that the emergency-docket pathway was warping how courts handle disputes meant for the regular track—especially when the timing intersects with elections.
For Louisiana, the May 4 ruling meant the clock could start moving immediately toward new congressional maps. For Jackson, it meant something else: the court appeared to be choosing speed over the usual caution, in a moment when appearing political is exactly what it is supposed to avoid.
Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court Louisiana redistricting midterm elections emergency docket Voting Rights Act Samuel Alito Richard Gergel congressional maps American Law Institute