By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a Supreme Court case regarding President Trump’s cancellation of NIH grants, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized the conservative justices for their decision, labeling it as “Calvinball jurisprudence.” Jackson argued that the court’s ruling, which forces plaintiffs to pursue a complex legal process for monetary damages, effectively neuters judicial review and favors the Trump administration. This decision, according to Jackson, allows the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants without providing a clear path for plaintiffs to seek complete relief. Jackson accused her conservative colleagues of making up the rules as they go, prioritizing political outcomes over established legal principles.
Read the original article here
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recent dissent in a Supreme Court case regarding Donald Trump’s cancellation of National Institutes of Health grants has sparked considerable discussion. The case itself focused on whether various parties could challenge Trump’s actions under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, what’s drawing the most attention is Justice Jackson’s pointed criticism of her conservative colleagues.
Jackson didn’t mince words, essentially labeling her fellow justices as partisan hacks in her written dissent. While Supreme Court justices routinely clash in their opinions, such a direct assessment of colleagues is unusual. This has amplified the debate surrounding the court’s perceived political leanings. The court’s decision was split, and the arguments presented on each side reflect the deep ideological divide influencing the judiciary.
Furthermore, the use of the term “Calvinball jurisprudence” adds a layer of intrigue to her dissent. The reference to the fictional game known for its lack of fixed rules suggests a perceived arbitrariness in how certain rulings are being made. Justice Jackson appears to be implying that the conservative justices are interpreting laws in a way that favors their desired outcomes, regardless of established legal principles. Her critique suggests the court is being steered by an “Administration” that always wins, a bold statement in the context of the Supreme Court.
Underlying these criticisms is a deeper concern about the court’s integrity. The comments circulating online frequently accuse conservative justices of bias, influenced by outside interests and political affiliations. Allegations of undisclosed financial dealings, accepting lavish gifts, and misrepresentations during confirmation hearings are often raised. Such concerns erode public trust in the court’s impartiality and fuel arguments that the justices are not truly acting as objective arbiters of the law.
The perception of a “deep state” influencing the court is also a common refrain in discussions about the justices. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the Council for National Policy, and the Federalist Society are frequently mentioned. It’s argued that these groups exert considerable influence over the GOP and the broader conservative agenda. This narrative portrays the court as a battleground where opposing ideologies clash, and the outcome of legal cases is determined by political alliances rather than legal principles.
Critics of the conservative justices also express concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest and a lack of transparency. Financial reports, travel expenses, and personal affiliations are scrutinized, raising questions about whether these justices are truly independent or beholden to external pressures. The alleged ethical lapses are seen as a betrayal of the public trust. The justice system should be the bastion of fairness, yet some believe its very foundation is being eroded.
The dissent also touches on broader themes of social hierarchy and power dynamics. The comments often characterize conservatism as a philosophy that prioritizes established hierarchies. Those on top are deemed deserving of privileges and resources, while those on the bottom are subjected to restrictions and scrutiny. The concern is that the court’s rulings often perpetuate this imbalance, thereby reinforcing the existing power structures.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding Ketanji Brown Jackson’s critique boils down to questions of fairness, impartiality, and the proper role of the Supreme Court in a democratic society. Whether one agrees with her assessment or not, her dissent has undeniably opened a significant conversation about the court’s direction, the influences at play, and the future of the American legal system. It has brought to light a strong feeling among some that the justices are not impartial judges, but rather, partisan actors.