Context:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has emerged as a vocal critic within the Supreme Court, particularly challenging the conservative majority's decisions that align with former President Trump's agenda. Despite writing the fewest majority opinions, her impactful dissents and concurrences highlight her concerns about judicial overreach and the potential threat to American democracy. Her critiques, often portraying the court's actions as lawless, have sometimes been met with rebuke from her colleagues, notably from Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Jackson's dissents aim to alert the public and future courts to what she perceives as significant judicial errors and dangers. Her rapid adjustment to the Supreme Court and her proactive stance on judicial matters contrast with the traditional, more subdued acclimatization of new justices.

Dive Deeper:

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her third term, has written an unusually high number of concurring and dissenting opinions, raising alarms about the Supreme Court's conservative majority and its alignment with the Trump administration's policies.

• Her dissents often criticize the majority for undermining the rule of law and democratic principles, as seen in her response to the ruling on birthright citizenship, which she termed an existential threat.

• Justice Jackson's outspoken nature and willingness to challenge her peers have occasionally led to tensions, notably with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who publicly rebuked Jackson's critiques as unfounded and contrary to constitutional precedents.

• Despite being new to the Supreme Court, Jackson has quickly found her voice, becoming one of the most prolific authors of concurring opinions since 1937, and frequently dissenting solo in significant cases.

• Her judicial approach contrasts with traditional norms, as she often uses her opinions to not only engage in legal disagreements but also to warn of broader implications, aiming to influence public perception and future judicial perspectives.

• Justice Jackson's background as a federal trial judge informs her views, leading her to criticize the majority for disregarding lower courts' roles and responsibilities, and she has been particularly vocal about the court's use of expedited procedures in emergency applications.

• Her dissents have addressed issues beyond specific cases, such as the ethical concerns surrounding Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., highlighting potential threats to institutional integrity due to undisclosed luxury travel benefitting from their public positions.