Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily halted a lower court order mandating the Trump administration provide full federal food benefits to approximately 42 million Americans. This temporary stay allows a federal appeals court more time to consider the Trump administration’s request for an extended pause of the district court’s decision regarding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments. The Trump administration sought emergency relief due to depleted contingency funds, stating that fulfilling the lower court’s order would necessitate diverting funds from critical Child Nutrition Programs. The legal dispute arose after the Trump administration said SNAP payments for November would be insufficient due to the government shutdown, prompting a lawsuit and resulting in the district court’s initial order.
Read More
The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to withhold approximately $4 billion needed to fully fund the food aid program, SNAP, for November. This action, a stay issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, gives a lower court more time to consider the administration’s request for partial funding, which was initially prompted by a judge’s order to fully fund the program. The administration argued that fully funding SNAP would cause “shutdown chaos”, while the judge accused the administration of withholding benefits for “political reasons” after the administration previously stated they would only provide $4.65 billion in emergency funding. The legal battle stemmed from the administration’s decision to provide only partial funding for SNAP amid the federal government shutdown.
Read More
Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court’s newest justice, is quickly establishing herself as a powerful liberal voice, especially in her dissents. In a footnote of her dissent in Trump v. Casa, Jackson cited Ernst Fraenkel’s work on Nazi Germany’s dual legal system, drawing a parallel between the current legal landscape and unchecked executive power. This subtle yet striking comparison serves as a warning about the potential threats to the rule of law. Jackson’s dissents, notably in the face of conservative court decisions, are a consistent call for justice.
Read More
In a solo opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the Supreme Court’s handling of the Trump administration’s legal battles, likening it to a game of “Calvinball” where the administration always prevails. Jackson described the NIH case as the latest instance of the court favoring the Executive Branch, highlighting the potential consequences for both the law and the public. This statement marked a departure from her colleagues, as she did not have the support of the other Democratic appointees. Jackson expressed hope that affected parties could maintain their claims long enough for the court to reconsider its stance.
Read More
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 More
Judges nationwide are experiencing a surge in threats, both physical and professional, stemming from their judicial duties. These attacks, seemingly intended to intimidate, are not random occurrences. Justice Jackson highlighted the “elephant in the room”—the former president’s actions—as a contributing factor to this concerning trend. She emphasized that these are not isolated incidents but rather affect the entire judicial system’s ability to function effectively.
Read More
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a strong condemnation of the Trump administration’s attacks on federal judges, characterizing them as threats to the rule of law and democratic norms. These attacks, ranging from threats of violence and professional retaliation to intimidation tactics like publicizing judges’ home addresses, are not isolated incidents but rather a systemic effort to undermine judicial independence. Jackson drew parallels to past challenges faced by judges during pivotal moments in American history, emphasizing the importance of resisting such pressures. Her speech, met with a standing ovation, served as the most forceful rebuke from the Supreme Court regarding these escalating attacks.
Read More
Justice Jackson issued a scathing dissent against the Supreme Court’s decision to utilize the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants. The ruling, made without oral arguments or briefs via the “shadow docket,” allows the deportation of migrants to a notoriously harsh prison based on unsubstantiated claims of gang affiliation. Jackson argues this sets a dangerous precedent, echoing the flawed Korematsu decision, and criticizes the lack of transparency and deliberation in the court’s emergency rulings. She contends the Court’s hasty decision, lacking proper review, demonstrates a troubling pattern of disregarding due process.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker