NOTE: VIDEO BELOW
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is under fire after her latest public comments during a Q&A event at the Indianapolis Bar Association, where she said the issue that keeps her up at night is “the state of our democracy.” The remarks, delivered during what was largely a casual discussion, have triggered an avalanche of criticism—especially from conservative circles who accuse Jackson of emotional reasoning and judicial activism.
Justice Jackson, 54, made the statement during a lightning-round question session. After listing her favorite book, genre of music, and vacation destination, she was asked what keeps her up at night. Her tone quickly shifted.
“I would say the state of our democracy,” Jackson responded, drawing applause from the audience.
She added, “I’m really very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government.”
But outside the room, critics pounced. Conservative commentators and social media users accused Jackson of projecting partisan fears instead of focusing on her role as an impartial interpreter of the Constitution.
“What keeps me up at night is that someone like her is deciding the future of the country,” one post on X (formerly Twitter) read.
Another said, “She’s not a judge. She’s an activist with a robe.”
The backlash follows a pattern. Justice Jackson has been the court’s most frequent dissenter since joining the Supreme Court in 2022, having been appointed by President Joe Biden in what many critics have called a purely “DEI-driven” move—referencing her being the first Black woman on the court and Biden’s public promise to nominate a candidate based on race and gender.
In one of the most high-profile rulings this term, Jackson was the lone dissenter in an 8–1 decision that allowed former President Trump’s plan to streamline the firing of federal employees. She also made waves with her dissent in a birthright citizenship case, in which she warned that “our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more” if the majority ruling prevailed.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a sharp rebuke of Jackson’s argument, writing, “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” and adding that her legal reasoning stood “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent.”
Critics argue that these dissents reflect an emotional approach to jurisprudence rather than a commitment to originalism or legal precedent. Legal analysts across the spectrum have begun raising concerns—not only from conservatives, but even from some in the liberal legal establishment—over Jackson’s tendency to inject dramatic, almost activist-style language into court opinions.
The latest controversy adds fuel to ongoing debates around identity politics, diversity hires, and the politicization of America’s highest court.
Whether Justice Jackson’s words were a heartfelt concern or another example of perceived ideological bias on the bench, one thing is clear: her critics aren’t losing sleep over “democracy”—they’re losing sleep over her.
