Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson isn’t just writing for her fellow robed colleagues anymore. Honestly, if you read her recent work, it feels like she’s writing directly to you—and maybe screaming a little bit on the inside.
The Supreme Court is often seen as this ivory tower where nine people talk in Latin and debate things that happened in 1789. But Jackson? She’s basically flipped the script. Her dissents have become these viral, plain-English manifestos that basically say: "Hey, real people are going to get hurt by this."
It's a vibe. A very specific, very intentional vibe.
Take the 2024-2025 term. While the majority of the court has been busy trimming the power of the federal government, Jackson has been standing in the corner, pointing at the fire. She isn't just saying "I disagree." She’s saying the house is burning.
The "Existential Threat" in Trump v. CASA
In June 2025, things got really heated. The Court took a look at "universal injunctions"—those big, sweeping orders where a single judge can stop a government policy nationwide. The conservative majority basically said, "No more." They wanted to limit these pauses to just the people actually suing.
Jackson’s response? She called it an "existential threat to the rule of law."
She didn't stop there. She argued that if the Executive branch can just keep violating the Constitution against everyone who hasn't sued yet, then the Constitution doesn't really mean much. It was a solo dissent that basically accused her colleagues of handing the President a "get out of jail free" card for lawbreaking. Justice Amy Coney Barrett even took a swipe back, calling Jackson's argument "startling."
👉 See also: Ethics in the News: What Most People Get Wrong
When Supreme Court justices start calling each other's homework "startling," you know the gloves are off.
Corruption, Burritos, and James Snyder
You’ve probably heard about the Snyder v. United States case. It’s the one where the court had to decide if it was okay for a mayor to take $13,000 from a company after he gave them a million-dollar contract.
The majority said it was fine. They called it a "gratuity," not a bribe, because the money came after the fact. They were worried that if they made "gratuities" illegal, a teacher might get arrested for accepting a Chipotle burrito bowl from a student.
Jackson was... let's say, less than impressed.
- She pointed out that the statute's plain text already covers being "rewarded."
- She mocked the "burrito bowl" defense.
- She argued that $13,000 isn't a "token of appreciation." It's a payoff.
Her dissent in Snyder was basically a masterclass in common sense. She argued that by gutting these anti-corruption laws, the Court was making the government "less trustworthy" for regular people.
The "Tsunami" of Lawsuits: Loper Bright and Chevron
If you want to see Jackson really get into the weeds, look at administrative law. I know, it sounds boring. But it's actually about who runs the country: experts or judges?
✨ Don't miss: When is the Next Hurricane Coming 2024: What Most People Get Wrong
When the Court overturned Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, they took power away from agencies (like the EPA or FDA) and gave it to themselves. Jackson, along with Sotomayor and Kagan, warned of a "tsunami of lawsuits."
She’s been proven right pretty quickly. Now, every time a company doesn't like a safety regulation, they can just ask a judge to rewrite the rulebook. Jackson’s point is simple: Judges aren't scientists. They aren't doctors. They shouldn't be the ones deciding how much lead is allowed in your drinking water.
Why Her Background Matters
Most people don't realize how much Jackson’s resume changes her writing. She’s the first Black woman on the Court, sure, but she’s also the first former public defender.
That matters. Most justices spent their careers as prosecutors or corporate lawyers. They see the law from the top down. Jackson sees it from the bottom up. She knows what it’s like to represent someone who can’t afford a lawyer and is getting crushed by the system.
In her dissent in the Harvard affirmative action case (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard), she didn't just talk about the 14th Amendment. She talked about history. She cited books on the racial wealth gap. She basically said that "colorblindness" in a world that isn't colorblind is just a way to ignore reality.
"The only way out of this morass—for all of us—is to stare at racial disparity unblinkingly, and then do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field."
🔗 Read more: What Really Happened With Trump Revoking Mayorkas Secret Service Protection
The "Delay" in Idaho's Abortion Case
In Moyle v. United States, the Court was supposed to decide if federal law requires Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions to save a woman's health. Instead, they "dismissed" the case, which basically meant they kicked the can down the road without a real answer.
Jackson was the only one to really call them out on the timing. She said, "Today’s decision is not a victory... It is delay."
She was angry because, while the justices debated procedural rules in D.C., women in Idaho were literally being airlifted to other states to get emergency care. To Jackson, the law isn't an abstract puzzle. It's life and death.
What Can You Actually Do With This?
If you're following the Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent trail, you aren't just reading legal documents. You're reading a blueprint for how a new generation of lawyers and activists is going to talk about the law.
- Read the dissents themselves. Don't just read the news summaries. Go to SCOTUSblog or the Supreme Court website. Jackson is a gifted writer; her opinions are surprisingly easy to follow.
- Watch the "Shadow Docket." A lot of what Jackson complains about happens in "emergency applications." These are quick rulings without full arguments. If you want to know where the Court is headed, look there first.
- Focus on the "Standing" doctrine. This is the technical way judges decide who is allowed to sue. Jackson is ringing the alarm that the Court is making it easier for "moneyed interests" to sue while making it harder for "ordinary citizens."
The legal landscape is shifting fast. Pay attention to the person in the dissent—she's often the one telling you exactly where the cracks in the foundation are appearing.