Ketanji Brown Jackson in Supreme Court 2020s
On Jobs:
Follows precedent in workplace racial discrimination cases
Reuters reviewed 25 cases in which Jackson issued substantive rulings as a U.S. district court judge in Washington from 2013 to 2021 involving plaintiffs who made claims of racial discrimination, most involving the workplace. Of the 25 cases, 22 were
pursued by Black plaintiffs. Jackson ruled against 19 of the Black plaintiffs.She ruled in favor of plaintiffs in only 3 of the cases. "Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases lose a lot; they are notoriously hard to win," said an employment
law expert.
In one case, Jackson declined to certify racial discrimination claims brought by two Black workers against defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp as a class action that would have involved potentially more than 5,000 employees.
Jackson's rulings show that she followed Supreme Court precedent in analyzing cases brought under the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination, a claim that can be difficult to prove because plaintiffs rarely have direct evidence of bias.
Source: Reuters on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 17, 2022
On Civil Rights:
Upheld program for disadvantaged small businesses
In Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense, Judge Jackson considered an equal protection challenge under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause to a provision of the Small Business Act that established a business development program for
socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns.
Judge Jackson rejected the challenge, holding that the plaintiff's facial challenge required showing that "no set of circumstances" existed under which the challenged provision would be valid,
or that the provision lacked "any plainly legitimate sweep," and plaintiff failed to meet that high bar.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Crime:
Prisons must evaluate and accommodate deaf prisoners
In Pierce v. District of Columbia, Judge Jackson considered disability discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a deaf man who was incarcerated in the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility without accommodations such as access to an American Sign
Language interpreter. Judge Jackson ruled in favor of the plaintiff on his discrimination claims, finding dispositive the fact that prison staff "did nothing to evaluate [the plaintiff's] need for accommodation, despite their knowledge that he was
disabled." Rejecting as "preposterous" the government's claim that the plaintiff had not requested accommodations for his disability, she held that "the failure of prison staff to conduct an informed assessment of the abilities and
accommodation needs of a new inmate who is obviously disabled is intentional discrimination in the form of deliberate indifference as a matter of law."
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Crime:
Miranda warning not required outside of police interrogation
In a case addressing Fifth Amendment protections, United States v. Richardson, Judge Jackson denied a motion to suppress statements that the defendant claimed were the product of custodial interrogation by law enforcement without constitutionally
required Miranda warnings.The defendant was detained in the living room of the apartment while law enforcement officers searched the apartment for drugs and guns. An officer discovered a handgun hidden in a laundry basket, and the defendant made
several statements that the handgun was hers.
Judge Jackson ultimately concluded that Miranda warnings were not required because the defendant "was not being subjected to police interrogation at the time she made the statements," based on testimony
indicating the defendant volunteered the statements in an atmosphere that was neither "inherently coercive" nor designed "to elicit an incriminating response" from her.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Crime:
No expectation of privacy when not in your apartment
In United States v. Leake, Judge Jackson denied the suppression motion of a defendant who claimed that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his apartment building's laundry room, arrested him without sufficient cause, and used
excessive force. Judge Jackson concluded that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the officers' entry to the apartment building's laundry room because it was a space in which he lacked a common law property-interest, the right to exclude
individuals, or a reasonable expectation of privacy. Jackson also determined that when one of the officers grabbed the defendant's arm, it amounted to an investigatory stop justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity given that the defendant
was standing in a suspicious position holding a "small clear plastic baggie in his hand."Judge Jackson also determined that the officers did not use excessive force by tackling the defendant when he tried to flee (and then fight) the officers.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Crime:
Denied release of child pornographer as risk to community
In United States v. Sears Judge Jackson denied compassionate release of an inmate with medical conditions, such as diabetes mellitus and asthma, that he claimed placed him at greater risk of serious complications from COVID-19.
The Judge's opinion concluded that reduction of the inmate's sentence would not comport with statutory sentencing factors concerning the purposes of punishment, citing the "extremely serious" nature of the inmate's crime
(distribution of child pornography), his high risk of reoffending and lack of sex offender treatment while in federal custody,
and the risk to the community if he were released.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Energy & Oil:
Can't use EPA review to stop oil pipelines
Judge Jackson denied a motion for a preliminary injunction in a case challenging whether the government had adequately assessed the environmental impacts of a domestic oil pipeline on mostly privately owned land. Jackson concluded that the plaintiffs
failed to show that either NEPA or the Clean Water Act required further environmental review of the project. In a later decision in the same case, Judge Jackson ruled in favor of the government, holding there was no obligation on federal agencies to
review the pipeline project's environmental impact. Jackson described NEPA as a "means of informing agency officials about the environmental consequences of major actions that the federal government is poised to take," rather than "a mechanism for
instituting federal evaluation and oversight of a private construction project that Congress has not seen fit to authorize the federal government to regulate."
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Families & Children:
Decide child pornography based on intent, not just actions
Judge Jackson [ruled in] United States v. Hillie, concerning federal prohibitions on the production and possession of child pornography. The defendant moved to dismiss the charges on several federal child-pornography counts, [based on] the
phrase "lascivious exhibition."To interpret that phrase, Judge Jackson relied on a set of guiding factors referred to as the "Dost factors," which include consideration of "whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual
response in the viewer," among other things. Jackson concluded that a reasonable jury could find the videos at issue to constitute "lascivious exhibition," emphasizing the need to account for the defendant's intent to gain sexual gratification from what
was filmed, rather than the victim's actions or state of mind. The defendant was subsequently convicted of seven federal child-pornography counts, but a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated those convictions on appeal based on insufficient evidence.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Free Trade:
Use only government data to set tobacco import subsidies
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. US Department of Agriculture involved a statutory provision requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to make subsidy payments to tobacco growers. The statute required basing those payments on all "relevant information,"
and the legal question was whether that phrase meant only information that was "precise and verified by another federal agency." Judge Jackson agreed that it did.
She concluded that Congress intended "to rely only on information that other federal law enforcement agencies have already verified." She held that the term "other relevant information"
should include only information that was similar to the categories of agency-substantiated information specifically enumerated earlier in the statute.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Jobs:
Lengthy discovery needed in employment discrimination cases
In Ross v. U.S. Capitol Police, an employment discrimination case, Judge Jackson addressed a motion to dismiss from the US Capitol Police. Judge Jackson observed that summary judgment [should come only] "after the plaintiff has been given adequate time
for discovery." Jackson considered that general principle to be especially important in employment discrimination cases, where a plaintiff's success often depends on the whether a defendant's proffered reasons for taking an employment action are
pretextual. As Judge Jackson observed, without the benefit of discovery, "it is hard to fathom that the plaintiff would be able to present any evidence related to the employer's reasons for the adverse employment action at all, much less evidence that
would be a sufficient basis upon which a rational jury could conclude that the defendant intentionally discriminated [or retaliated] against the plaintiff." Based on this analysis, Jackson concluded that a motion for summary judgment was premature.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Technology:
Don't blame car sound systems for illegal music copying
Judge Jackson [issued] several opinions in Alliance of Artists & Recording Cos. v. General Motors. This case involved the Audio Home Recording Act, a federal law requiring manufacturers and distributors of "digital audio recording devices" to implement
certain technologies and pay per-device royalties. At issue in the case was whether in-vehicle systems produced "digital audio copied recordings." The defendant car manufacturers argued that their in-vehicle systems were not covered because they did
not generate output. Judge Jackson agreed with the defendants, noting that courts [could] order the destruction of any noncompliant digital audio recording device. In her view, it made "little sense that Congress would only authorize a court to seize or
destroy the [device], while leaving the illegal copies unscathed."
After further proceedings in the case, Judge Jackson granted summary judgment in favor of the auto manufacturers. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Technology:
Wheelchair anti-discrimination laws do apply to Uber
In a discrimination case against a private defendant, Judge Jackson considered claims that Uber discriminated against wheelchair users in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the D.C. Human Rights Act. Judge Jackson rejected
Uber's arguments that the relevant antidiscrimination statutes did not apply to the company, holding that the plaintiff made sufficiently plausible claims of discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
On Homeland Security:
Defended accused terrorist while her brother was in Iraq
As an assistant federal public defender, she worked on behalf of Khi Ali Gul, who was captured by Afghan forces in 2002, designated an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Jackson added that during this time, her brother was in the
U.S. Army and deployed to Iraq, and wrote she was "keenly and personally mindful of the tragic and deplorable circumstances that gave rise to the U.S. government's apprehension and detention of the persons who were secured at Guantanamo Bay."
She noted that under ethics rules, "an attorney has a duty to represent her clients zealously, which includes refraining from contradicting her client's legal arguments and/or undermining her client's interests
by publicly declaring the lawyer's own personal disagreement with the legal position or alleged behavior."
Source: CBS News on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 3, 2022
On Principles & Values:
OpEd: does affirmative action apply to qualified nominees?
Because Biden specified the race and gender of the person he would nominate as a Justice, Republicans have been up in arms about an age-old question of Affirmative Action. Some argued that the president is only trying to superficially diversify the
courtroom by intentionally seeking out an underrepresented member of a marginalized group.Conservative news pundit Tucker Carlson has recently been criticized for his racist remarks about the legitimacy of Jackson's experience and expertise.
Carlson demanded to see Jackson's LSAT scores, attempting to build an aura of mystery around the affair as if Biden was scrambling to hide Jackson's law school application.
There have been many unsubstantiated rumors about how
Jackson got into Harvard or about how much knowledge she really possesses about the legal system. These events commonly play out when minorities enter positions of power.
Source: The Signal of TCNJ on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 1, 2022
On Families & Children:
2018: Keep Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program
As a law associate, Jackson co-authored a 2001 amicus brief in support of a Massachusetts law creating a "buffer zone" around people as they approach abortion clinics. As a district court judge, Jackson ruled in 2018 against the Trump administration's
early termination of some federal grants under the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. The ruling wasn't focused on the substance of the grants, but rather on administrative law, like how the federal health department went about making the changes.
Source: Washington Post on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 28, 2022
On Welfare & Poverty:
Continue pandemic-related eviction moratorium
Jackson ruled in favor of Massachusetts hospitals in a challenge to how the Department of Health and Human Services calculated Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments. Last summer, she was part of a three-judge panel that allowed the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention's pandemic-related eviction moratorium to continue.So, can we predict her health care rulings? There's not a lot to go on here, in part because she's just very consistent at applying current law.
Source: Washington Post on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 28, 2022
On Civil Rights:
Nomination endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign
The Supreme Court has historically played an outsized role in affirming the constitutional rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and other marginalized communities. After a careful review of her record, it is clear that Jackson's demonstrated fidelity to the
principles of our Constitution instills confidence that she will continue Justice Breyer's legacy as a champion of equality. The Human Rights Campaign is proud to support Jackson to be the newest Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Source: Human Rights Campaign on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Civil Rights:
Served on board for school that condemned LGBTQ people
She once worked as an adviser for a Baptist school in the Maryland suburbs that had a mission statement against LGBTQ people and abortion. Jackson said. "I was not aware that the school had a public website or that any statement of beliefs was
posted on the school's website at the time of my service. My service on the advisory school board primarily involved planning for school fundraising activities for the benefit of enrolled students."
Source: Washington Blade on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Drugs:
100-to-one crack-powder penalty distinction unwarranted
[On drug sentencing]: "The Commission first identified the myriad problems with a mandatory minimum statute that penalizes crack cocaine offenders 100 times more severely than offenders who traffic in powder cocaine," Jackson said in a 2011 Sentencing
Commission meeting. "Today, there is no federal sentencing provision that is more closely identified with unwarranted disparity and perceived systemic unfairness than the 100-to-one crack-powder penalty distinction."
Source: The 19th e-zine on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Education:
On Harvard Board of Overseers; will recuse on Harvard case
Jackson's involvement on the board of overseers at her alma mater Harvard University has emerged as a possible conflict of interest for an upcoming Supreme Court case seeking to strike down Harvard's affirmative action practices as discriminatory.
In the past, justices including Breyer and Elena Kagan have recused themselves from cases involving conflicts of interest.
Source: The 19th e-zine on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Environment:
Rejected challenge to forest management regulations
Judge Jackson has issued several environmental protection rulings, such as rejecting a challenge to forest management regulations by timber and ranching plaintiffs. Judge Jackson also permitted a lawsuit to proceed against the
Navy regarding contamination of a river. And she has weighed in on the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, denying an FDA request to redact information on antimicrobial drug use for food-producing animals.
Source: MedPageToday on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Families & Children:
Don't require religious employers to cover contraception
Judge Jackson has not heard any cases that directly address abortion rights. As a district court judge, she heard cases involving access to contraception.In 2014, she applied the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell to a similar
challenge to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement, Barron Industries v. Burwell. In the case, Judge Jackson granted the parties' joint motion for a permanent injunction and issued a short opinion barring the federal government
from requiring the employer to provide its employees with health care coverage for contraceptives to which it had a religious objection.
In 2018, Judge Jackson ruled on two cases involving the Trump administration's abrupt cancellation of grants
funding the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. In Policy and Research LLC v. US Department of Health and Human Services, Judge Jackson held the Department of Health and Human Services unlawfully terminated plaintiffs' grant funding without explanation.
Source: ReproductiveRights.org on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Government Reform:
Judges should defer to expert opinion of federal agencies
At her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the U.S. Court of Appeals, Judge Jackson said she had applied Chevron deference at least 11 times. Chevron is a long-standing doctrine where judges defer to the expert opinion of federal agencies.
The Supreme Court historically recognized that agencies must have considerable leeway to create and enforce health and safety regulations. Lay justices should not substitute their opinions for those of career professionals.
Source: MedPageToday on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Gun Control:
Has never affirmed individual right to guns
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has never affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual, fundamental right of all Americans to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves or others. Consequently, the NRA is concerned with
President Biden's decision to nominate her to the Supreme Court of the United States at a crucial time when there are vital cases that will determine the scope and future of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights in our country.
Source: NRA-ILA on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Immigration:
Trump administration set asylum seeking standards too high
In October 2020, Jackson sided with immigrant advocacy groups who sued the Trump administration over a lesson plan used to train federal immigration officers who screen potential asylum seekers slated for fast-track deportations. The challengers
argued the language adopted in 2019 wrongly raised the bar too high for the initial round of vetting to see if a person had shown a "credible fear" of persecution in their home country. Jackson agreed. The Justice Department decided not to appeal.
Source: BuzzFeed.com on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Immigration:
Due process for immigrants regardless of legal status
Judge Jackson has been a steadfast supporter of civil rights. In 2019, she ordered the Department of Homeland Security not to expand deportations without a court hearing.
She has defended immigrants' rights to due process of law, regardless of legal status.
Source: MedPageToday on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Jobs:
Reversed narrowing of federal collective bargaining rules
Labor groups--longtime allies of Biden--were vocal about wanting a nominee with a record of backing workers' rights. Jackson's first written opinion as a DC Circuit judge was a win for federal employees. In a 3-0 decision earlier this month,
the court struck down a 2020 policy change by the Federal Labor Relations Authority that narrowed the circumstances when agencies were required to engage in collective bargaining before making changes to work conditions.
Source: BuzzFeed.com on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Principles & Values:
I do not have a judicial philosophy per se
When answering a question during her last confirmation hearing about her judicial philosophy, Jackson said: "I do not have a judicial philosophy per se, other than to apply the same method of thorough analysis to every case, regardless of the parties."
She added, "Given the very different functions of a trial court judge and a Supreme Court justice, I am not able to draw an analogy between any particular justice's judicial philosophy and the approach that I have employed."
Source: The 19th e-zine on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
On Crime:
Pushed to commute uncle's sentence under "three strikes" law
The thick envelope that Ketanji Brown Jackson received in the mail in 2005, when she was a federal public defender in D.C., was like many others inmates had sent to her office: laden with stamps and stuffed with court filings and a plea for help. But
this one was a personal appeal. It had been sent by her distant uncle, Thomas Brown Jr., inmate #15854-004, who was serving a life sentence in Florida for a nonviolent drug crime.Jackson's brush with her uncle and his prison sentence, which arose out
of the nation's war on drugs, adds to a set of life experiences that would distinguish her from previous justices. Brown was sentenced to life under a "three strikes" law. After a referral from Jackson, a powerhouse law firm took his case pro bono, and
President Barack Obama years later commuted his sentence.
By the time her uncle contacted her, that person said, she was an experienced attorney and "already knew what has become a national consensus that the nation's drug laws were overly harsh."
Source: Washington Post on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Jan 30, 2022
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022