Alito Obliterates Jackson’s Dissent: ‘Groundless and Utterly Irresponsible’
Alito reminds Jackson that SCOTUS exists to interpret the law, not to be activists.
The Supreme Court issued an order to implement its 6-3 ruling that Louisiana’s redrawn congressional map violated the Constitution.
A SCOTUS judgment usually lands back at the lower court after 32 days. Bypassing the timeline means the lower court can enforce the redraw of the unconstitutional map.
Normally, this course of action would not be a big deal.
Except, this time, I guess Justice Samuel Alito finally had enough of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson due to her dissent against the order.
“The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered,” Alito started his concurring opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
I guess this means I have to read Jackson’s dissent, but you guys need context.
Jackson started her dissent by claiming, “The Court’s decision in these cases has spawned chaos in Louisiana.” She accused the majority of not just deciding the law, but now taking “steps to influence its implementation.”
By abandoning its usual practices and precedents, Jackson said the majority “unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray.”
Alito, along with Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, has had enough of Jackson, describing her accusations as “trivial” and “baseless and insulting.”
Their concurring opinion is brilliant:
The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power. See post, at 4 (“And just like that, those principles give way to power”). That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge. What principle has the Court violated? The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32 day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?
The dissent accuses the Court of “unshackl[ing]” itself from “constraints.” Post, at 4. It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.
The justices calmly explained that SCOTUS can bypass Rule 45.3 when the appellees don’t express an interest in filing a petition for a rehearing.
Also, Louisiana needs a map now, especially since citizens can already participate in early voting in the primaries.
“The congressional districting map enacted by the legislature has been held to be unconstitutional, and the general election will be held in just six months,” added Alito.
You want chaos, Jackson? You would get chaos if a state proceeded with a map ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS:
The second reason offered by the dissent is that we should allow the 32 day period to run out in order to “avoid the appearance of partiality.” Post, at 3 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). But the dissent does not explain why its insistence on unthinking compliance with Rule 45.3’s default rule does not create the appearance of partiality (by running out the clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.
Mic drop. Boom.
Justice Jackson should remember this advice after reading Justice Alito’s response to her dissent:
“Never engage in a battle of wits with a Sicilian” https://t.co/s4QjDbv9Ql
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) May 5, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I am a CPA with a specialization in federal taxation. Her concurrence in Moore v US (the Mandatory Repatriation Tax case) ie taxation of a foreign corporation’s income as if received by the US shareholder was deranged.
Its not surprising that she is writing deranged dissents.
I work indirectly with 3 former supreme court clerks. Each one of those three have commented on the frequency of citations in liberal justices opinions that misrepresent the holdings in those cited cases. By frequently, they implied that 3-4 times per term ( that would be out of 800+ citations during a term. = error rate of less than 1% which would be considered frequent at that professional level )
Jackson obliterated that rate. She misrepresented the holdings in 7-8 cases in a single concurrence.
To a battle of wits, KBJ comes unarmed.
Not being able to “define a woman” during her confirmation hearings showed the world her incompetence. Affirmative action never succeeds.
Leave a Comment