Ketanji Brown Jackson warns of Supreme Court appearing partisan

WASHINGTON − Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on May 18 amplified her concern about a rare extra step the court took after its blockbuster decision limiting the Voting Rights Act, saying she fears the appearance of partisanship.

The justices this month allowed its April 29 decision to take effect early, boosting the chances that Republicans could impose a new congressional map in Louisiana before the November elections.

“My view was it would be a more neutral way to handle the matter to just stick with the rule that we always apply in situations like this,” Jackson said when asked at a legal conference about her dissent in that case.

The court, she said, has “to be really, really careful in this environment when we’re dealing with issues that have a political overlay.”

“It is so important for the public to perceive us as neutral, nonpartisan,” Jackson said at a meeting of the American Law Institute. “We know that public confidence is really all the judiciary has.”

The normal rule is that the court holds on to decisions for 32 days after they are reached to allow time for the losing side to request another hearing.

The justices may shorten that time, but it’s rare to do so when the losing side objects – as was the case in the Voting Rights Act dispute.

Jackson, one of the court’s three liberal justices, was the only justice who publicly dissented from that decision.  The court’s principles, she wrote in her dissent, “give way to power.”

Justice Samuel Alito, in a written response, called that a “groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”

Alito said an “unthinking compliance” with the court’s default rule would also have created the appearance of partiality by helping run out the clock so Louisiana would have had no choice but to use a congressional map that the court had ruled unconstitutional.

“What principle has the Court violated?” he asked. “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?”

Asked at the legal conference about her many dissents, Jackson called them an important way of showing that the justices can work with those who hold different views, lay out an alternative position, “and then move on.”