Jackson, one of the court’s most liberal justice, writes that her colleagues may have unintentionally shown preferential treatment of the Trump administration.
Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up the stage in the Broadway musical “& Juliet”
Supreme Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson treated “&Juliet” fans with special performances only one night!
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is on a winning streak with quick support from the Supreme Court after lower courts put the brakes on his policies.
This prompted one of three liberal justice to write that the court was sending out a “troubling message” that it deviated from the basic legal standards of the administration.
“It is particularly surprising to think that relief grants in these circumstances can (unintentionally) communicate not only the priority treatment of the government, but also the willingness to undermine both the skilled interim judgment of lower court colleagues and the established constraints of the law in the process of enforcement.”
Jackson was opposed to the conservative majority’s decision to fully access the efficiency of Elon Musk’s government with full access to the data held by the US Social Security Agency for the millions of Americans.
Again, she wrote in dissent with Judge Sonia Sotomayor taking part.
The district judge blocked access to Doge’s “personally identifiable information” while assessing whether the access was legal.
Jackson said the majority of courts have not required the administration to demonstrate that it has been “irreparably hurtful” by failing to gain immediate access, one of the legal criteria for intervention.
“Essentially, it says that other The applicant for stay must point beyond the inconvenience of compliance with an unlikable lower court order. “The government can approach the court bar with more than that and still get relief from this court,” he wrote.
In a decision that was short and unsigned, the majority said they weighed the “irreparable harm” factors against those in the public interest against other necessary considerations, whether the court would likely find Doge to ultimately obtain the data.
However, the majority did not explain how they did.
Jackson said the court “evidently failed” to evaluate Trump’s appeal.
Jackson filed a similar complaint on May 30 when the court said it could revoke temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States.
Jackson wrote that the court “explicitly failed” an assessment of whether the government or about 530,000 immigrants would do much more harm if the mass termination of that position is suing.
Jackson said the majority is underrated. “The catastrophic consequences of allowing the government to seriously overturn the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million non-citizens while legal claims are pending.”
The majority did not provide an explanation for that decision.
In addition to these interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge’s order requiring information on DOGE’s operations, refused to recover board members of independent agencies fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip 350,000 Venezuelans of legal protections, and said the president could enforce his ban on transgender people serving the military.
Jackson opposed all of these decisions.
Two other liberal justices in the court, Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, opposed most of them.
The court handed over Trump in May, when the administration banned the government from quickly resuming deportation of Venezuelans under the Wartime Act of 1798.
Two of the six conservative justices in the court – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito opposed.
Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the education sector and enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
