Fed-up Justice Alito Just Leveled 5 Humiliating Insults at Justice Jackson in Withering Majority Opinion - Here's the List
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2022, has long since worn out her welcome.
Indeed, add Justice Samuel Alito to the list of people fed up with former President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court DEI appointment.
Alito issued a scathing opinion that featured five insults rarely hurled by one justice toward another.
For context, in a landmark decision handed down on Wednesday, the Supreme Court invalidated racial gerrymandering.
In the case of Louisiana v. Callais, et al. (“Callais”), a 6-3 majority ruled that the 1965 Voting Rights Act does not require Louisiana to add a new majority-black district to its newest congressional map, and that the Voting Rights Act, in fact, prohibits such districts designed to produce electoral outcomes based on skin color.
Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, approved the application to issue the Supreme Court’s judgment forthwith.
Even the approval of that application, however, inspired a petulant dissent from Jackson.
In short, Jackson complained that Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and a three-judge lower court had already acted to bring Louisiana into compliance with the Callais decision despite the fact that the Supreme Court had yet to issue its certified ruling.
“Apparently, neither the Governor nor the three-judge court viewed themselves as limited by the fact that this Court had yet to issue its certified judgment in these cases; in the ordinary course, we do not do so until at least 32 days after the opinion is released,” Jackson wrote.
Three paragraphs later came the first passage that no doubt rankled Alito and his fellow conservative justices.
“The Court’s decision to buck our usual practice under Rule 45.3 and issue the judgment forthwith is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map,” Jackson wrote, referring to an “ongoing election” conducted in accordance with a map the Supreme Court has already invalidated.
Finally, citing two legal precedents, Jackson closed with a second passage that Alito and company found intolerable.
“The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent,” she wrote.
Thus, Alito took his leftist colleague to task.
“The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional,” Alito began.
Moreover, “the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting.”
“Trivial” and “insulting” — that’s two words or phrases Supreme Court justices seldom direct toward one another.
Two paragraphs later, Alito noted Jackson’s complaint that waiving the usual 32-day delay creates an “appearance of partiality.”
“But the dissent does not explain why its insistence on unthinking compliance with Rule 45.3’s default rule does not create the appearance of partiality (by running out the clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map,” Alito wrote.
Then, Alito denounced Jackson’s absurd “principles give way to power” claim as “a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”
“Unthinking,” “groundless,” and “utterly irresponsible” — that’s three more words or phrases one rarely sees in justices’ responses to one another.
As for Jackson’s claim that the Supreme Court had unshackled itself from constraints, Alito had an answer for that, too.
“It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint,” he concluded.
All things considered, it was a remarkable but wholly unsurprising response from Alito.
After all, Jackson has reportedly left even liberal colleagues Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor periodically frustrated.
Likewise, in June 2025, the nominally conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who sometimes votes with the liberal minority, gave Jackson a stinging rebuke by accusing her of “embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Indeed, Jackson does not understand either the Constitution or its purpose. She once worried, for instance, that the First Amendment, designed to constrain the government, might actually constrain the government.
Biden appointed Jackson because she is a black woman. He might have appointed any number of capable black female jurists. But he appointed her.
In other words, this is what happens when liberals prioritize skin color.
When you emphasize competence and choose people regardless of skin color, you usually get competence. But when you choose someone first and foremost because of skin color, you get Jackson and former Vice President Kamala Harris.
In short, one can sense Alito’s exasperation. Note that Thomas and Gorsuch joined in the opinion, including the five insults.
Note, too, that none of the justices, not even the liberal ones, joined Jackson’s dissent.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
