Shawn Fleetwood of the Federalist highlights US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s response to a colleague’s misguided writing.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court opinions are often poorly argued and lack coherent legal reasoning. And in the high court’s latest release, Justice Samuel Alito made sure she knew it.
The Alito-driven smackdown happened late Monday when the Supreme Court released an order related to its landmark Louisiana v. Callais decision, in which the majority (led by Alito) determined that Louisiana’s most recent congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Equally significant, however, is that the ruling effectively nuked states’ ability to partake in race-based redistricting.
In its newest order, the high court agreed to fast-track the transmission of its decision to the lower courts rather than wait 32 days, as per normal custom. …
… The Supreme Court’s decision to grant the Callais appellees’ request in accordance with existing SCOTUS rules did not sit well with Jackson. The Biden appointee penned an unhinged solo screed claiming the court’s order “has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.” …
… Clearly fed up with Jackson’s political activism from the bench, Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a concurring opinion addressing the junior justice’s charges he said “cannot go unanswered.”
The Bush appointee noted how Jackson’s position “would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.” He further highlighted how the Biden appointee “does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution” or “assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map.”
“Instead,” Alito wrote, “the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting.”
Alito went on to rip the incoherence behind Jackson’s opposition to the court’s suspension of its 32-day default rule.
