The Supreme Court just delivered a thunderbolt—striking down race-based redistricting that had twisted the Voting Rights Act for decades. This wasn't a routine ruling; it was a clean break from an era of judicial overreach.
On Monday, the justices took another bold step: they immediately allowed Louisiana to redraw its unconstitutional congressional map. But one justice refused to go along—and her fiery dissent shocked even her allies.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't just disagree. She attacked her colleagues' integrity, accusing them of partisanship. Her words were so inflammatory that Justice Samuel Alito fired back, calling her insults "unworthy of a justice."
Let's rewind to the 1960s. Segregationist states were carving up districts to silence Black voters. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to stop that—a noble goal. But then courts twisted Section 2 into a mandate for proportional representation by race, no matter what.
The result? States like Louisiana, with a 30% Black population, were forced to create two majority-Black districts out of six. Never mind that the state was overwhelmingly Republican—race had to come first.
Then came Callais v. Louisiana—the case that shattered this flawed logic. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito ruled that the VRA only kicks in when states intentionally discriminate. Partisan gerrymandering? That's legal. Racial quotas? Not so much.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Neil Gorsuch, wanted to go even further—effectively gutting Section 2 entirely. The message was clear: the era of forced racial districting is over.
Now, with Louisiana's primary looming and early voting already underway, time was critical. The Court fast-tracked the judgment, skipping the usual 25-day waiting period. This wasn't a partisan power play—it was common sense.
Leftist justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan raised no objection. But Jackson couldn't resist. She penned a dissent that had no legal substance—only a vague claim that the Court looked "partisan." Alito wasn't having it.
"Calling the majority partisan is insulting," he wrote in a blistering concurrence. Even Jackson's fellow liberals refused to join her attack. The only reasonable interpretation? She wanted to smear her colleagues for political points.
This isn't the first time Jackson has burned bridges. Last year, in a major case on federal injunctions, she wrote a dissent that ignored centuries of precedent. Justice Amy Coney Barrett called it an "imperial judiciary" in the making.
Now compare Jackson to the other Black women President Biden could have chosen. Leondra Kruger and Michelle Childs are liberals too, but they build consensus. They minimize damage when they lose. Jackson? She lights matches and walks away.
Her strategy backfires spectacularly. Instead of persuading conservative justices, she alienates them. The result? More conservative victories, not fewer. For those who celebrate originalism and limited government, Jackson may be the most valuable asset on the bench—a gift that keeps on giving.
