In the past three years, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has emerged as a frequent and visible dissenter on the U.S. Supreme Court. Her recent 21-page opinion on the case concerning the Trump administration’s termination of nearly $800 million in health research grants provides insight into this role. The Court’s August 21 order allowed the administration to terminate the grants but not to continue using the internal guidance documents that prompted these cuts. This close decision was accompanied by five opinions, with Jackson’s impassioned solo dissent highlighting her growing reputation as the Court’s great dissenter.
Justice Jackson argued that the Court had unjustly favored the Trump administration, particularly on the Court’s emergency docket, where decisions are reached without full briefing or oral arguments. She accused the Court of making it challenging to uphold the rule of law against injurious government actions. SCOTUSblog discusses how Justice Jackson often disagrees with her Republican-appointed colleagues, such as Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, who criticized her opinion as a misinterpretation of law.
Jackson has consistently focused on the potential overreach of presidential power and her concerns with the Court’s responses to the Trump administration’s initiatives. In the 2024-25 term, she had one of the lowest rates of joining the majority, doing so in 72% of cases, compared to Justice Elena Kagan who joined in 83% of cases. Jackson also authored a notable dissent in Trump v. CASA, a case on universal injunctions, warning of threats to the rule of law by limiting the power of federal judges to issue injunctions.
The dissent in CASA drew considerable pushback from Chief Justice Barrett and sparked discussions about Jackson’s approach and its impact on her relationship with other justices. The ongoing debate encapsulates the divide between her strong critique of perceived conservative favoritism and her colleagues’ more cautious stances. This topic has been covered extensively in legal circles, notably on Balls and Strikes and New Republic.
Justice Jackson is poised to remain a key figure in the ongoing debates within the Roberts Court. As the Court prepares to address more of the Trump administration’s policy challenges, her pattern of dissent and critique may become even more pronounced, particularly as the liberal bloc navigates its internal dynamics and relationship with conservative justices. For more detailed analysis, see the full article on SCOTUSblog.