Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has issued an extraordinary rebuke of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, branding her arguments 'baseless and insulting'. The broadside came after Jackson accused the court's conservative majority of an 'unprincipled use of power' in fast-tracking a ruling that lets Louisiana Republicans redraw their congressional map before the November midterms.
Background of the Dispute
At issue is whether the Supreme Court should have rushed last week's ruling into effect, bending its own timing rules to let the state alter the map. The decision means Louisiana can now suspend its ongoing primary so Republicans can redraw districts and dismantle one of the state's two majority-black seats.
The conservative majority argued the fast-track was justified as early voting in the primary was already underway and the midterms are just six months away. The losing side, the justices noted, had not signaled any intent to file a rehearing petition, which is the standard reason for the 32-day waiting period.
Jackson's Dissent
But Jackson argued in fiery language that the move compromised the appearance of neutrality, writing that it was 'tantamount to an approval of Louisiana's rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.' The majority, she added, had 'dive[d] into the fray' in a way that was 'unwarranted and unwise.'
Jackson noted in her dissent that the court has waived its standard 32-day waiting period only twice in the past 25 years, underscoring how unusual Monday's intervention was.
Alito's Rebuttal
Alito countered that it was common sense to send the case back to the lower court immediately once the underlying constitutional question, decided 6-3 last week in Louisiana v. Callais, had been settled in Louisiana's favor. In a concurrence joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Alito wrote that 'the dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered.'
He dismissed Jackson's two stated reasons for keeping to the 32-day waiting period - that the court should stick to the rule and foregoing it threatened the appearance of impartiality - writing: 'One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting.'
Alito issued a ferocious rebuttal to Jackson's accusation that the majority had acted in an 'unprincipled' fashion, calling it 'a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.' And in an acerbic barb at her tone, he wrote: 'The dissent accuses the Court of "unshackl[ing]" itself from "constraints." It is the dissent's rhetoric that lacks restraint.'
Context of the Ruling
Monday's order was unsigned, meaning it was issued in the name of the court without identifying which justices were in the majority or how they voted. Only Jackson publicly noted her dissent, leaving her isolated even from her two liberal colleagues, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who had joined her in dissenting from last week's underlying 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.
In that ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett formed the majority, with Kagan writing a dissent so forceful she read it aloud from the bench and dropped the customary 'respectfully' from her sign-off.
The clash is the latest blow-up involving Jackson, appointed by Joe Biden in 2022, who has emerged as the court's most strident solo dissenter, repeatedly going it alone to torch majority rulings that hand wins to Donald Trump and the GOP.
