UMVA has learned that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply rebuked her fellow justices for the Supreme Court’s handling of a high‑stakes Louisiana gerrymandering case.
Speaking to an audience in Washington, D.C., Jackson warned that the Court had rushed its May 4 decision and then hastily sent a similar Mississippi redistricting dispute back to lower courts, a move she says blurs the line between law and politics.
“Courts are apolitical, not supposed to be issuing rulings that are in the political realm,” she asserted, emphasizing the need for unwavering adherence to established principles rather than selective application in politically charged cases.
U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel pressed Jackson on the Court’s decision to forgo the usual month‑long waiting period before finalizing the Louisiana ruling, and she replied that the Court must remain “very constrained” and follow the neutral rulebook that governs every case.
Jackson stopped short of naming colleagues but hinted that the Court’s latest actions foster a perception of partiality, noting that “real‑world consequences are occurring” while the public remains confused about the Court’s reasoning.
She stressed that public confidence is the judiciary’s only currency, insisting that the nation must see the highest court as neutral and nonpartisan.
The Louisiana case centered on whether the state’s 2024 congressional map, which added a second majority‑Black district, violated the Constitution as a racial gerrymander. The justices concluded that compliance with the Voting Rights Act, though a compelling interest, did not obligate Louisiana to create that district, aligning with a lower court that blocked the map.
UMVA can exclusively reveal that the ruling could unleash a cascade of challenges to congressional boundaries nationwide, raising the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs who must now prove a racially discriminatory motive.
