WSJ Analysis Finds Jackson Most Partisan Supreme Court Justice

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has emerged as the Supreme Court’s most partisan member, according to a new analysis by the Wall Street Journal. The report found that Jackson voted against the Trump administration in 98 out of 100 major cases, a rate that surpasses that of any other justice currently serving on the high court. In comparison, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas sided with the administration 89% and 88% of the time, respectively, highlighting a sharp divide in voting patterns among the justices.

Explainer Understanding the Supreme Court’s Impact on Law and Liberty

The Wall Street Journal’s findings come at a time when Democratic leaders and progressive activists are intensifying criticism of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. These critics have raised concerns about judicial impartiality and the potential for political influence on the bench, especially as the court continues to issue decisions with far-reaching implications for American law and society.

The analysis by the Wall Street Journal highlighted Justice Alito’s consistent support for Trump administration initiatives. Alito has written strong opinions in favor of expanding presidential power, often aligning with the court’s conservative bloc. However, the data also revealed that Justice Jackson’s opposition to the administration was even more pronounced. Her voting record diverged from both conservative and liberal colleagues in several high-profile cases, underscoring her distinct judicial approach.

Chiles v. Salazar Dissent

One notable example cited in the analysis was the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar earlier this year. In that case, the court ruled 8-1 that Colorado could not ban therapists from offering alternatives to “transgender” ideology, citing free speech rights. Justice Jackson was the sole dissenter, arguing that the state’s regulations were standard medical protections designed to safeguard patients. In contrast, liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority, illustrating a split within the court’s liberal wing.

Jackson's Other Notable Dissents

Jackson has also written lone dissents in other significant cases. Following a 6-3 ruling that found a Louisiana districting map unconstitutional, the court voted 8-1 to expedite the decision’s release. Once again, Jackson was the only justice to dissent, criticizing the court for what she described as unwarranted intervention in election matters. Her willingness to stand alone in dissent has set her apart from her colleagues and drawn attention from court watchers and analysts.

A report by The New York Times last year described a growing divide among the court’s three liberal justices, with Jackson portrayed as the most radical member of the trio. According to the Times, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have expressed concerns that Jackson’s frequent solo dissents could weaken the liberal bloc’s influence on the court’s decisions. The Times wrote, “Sotomayor and Kagan worry that their newer colleague’s candor and propensity to add her own dissents have diluted the group’s impact.”

Democratic leaders have long targeted the court’s originalist justices for upholding conservative principles. In a 2020 speech, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh of consequences if they overturned Roe v. Wade, stating, “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.”

The political climate surrounding the Supreme Court intensified following the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Protests erupted outside the homes of several justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. In one incident, a man was arrested at Kavanaugh’s home with a firearm and reportedly intended to harm the justice, underscoring the heightened tensions and security concerns facing the court.

Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway has argued that liberal justices contributed to the tense climate by delaying the release of the Dobbs decision. She suggested that the delay may have fueled public unrest and increased pressure on the court during a critical period.

Despite ongoing criticism of conservative justices, Justice Jackson has accused originalists of “partiality.” However, her own voting record has drawn scrutiny from analysts who say it reflects a high degree of partisanship. The Wall Street Journal’s findings have prompted debate about the role of ideology and partisanship on the Supreme Court, with some observers questioning whether any justice can remain truly impartial in today’s polarized political environment.

Supporters of Justice Jackson have not publicly responded to the Wall Street Journal’s analysis. As the Supreme Court continues to issue rulings on contentious issues, the debate over judicial impartiality and partisanship is likely to remain at the forefront of public discourse.