When even her fellow liberals are rolling their eyes, you know something’s off at the highest court in the land: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s solo dissents have become so frequent and pointed, it’s not just conservatives calling foul—it’s her own side, too.
At a Glance
- Justice Jackson’s solo dissents are creating visible tension at the Supreme Court, even among liberal justices.
- Her relentless public warnings about “democracy” and “rule of law” have drawn sharp rebukes from the conservative majority and unease from her peers.
- Jackson’s approach stands out for breaking with tradition, using her position to sound political alarms instead of focusing on legal reasoning.
- Public trust in the Supreme Court risks further erosion as Jackson’s dissents become more performative and less persuasive.
Justice Jackson’s Solo Acts Wear Thin—Even With Her Own Team
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, once hailed as a historic trailblazer on the Supreme Court, has found herself increasingly isolated—not just from the conservative majority, but from her own liberal colleagues. Throughout the 2024-2025 term, Jackson has issued a record number of dissenting and concurring opinions, many of them solo, and almost all marked by dire warnings about threats to democracy and the rule of law. Yet, the irony is hard to miss: for all her talk about the importance of “collective action,” she’s managed to alienate even Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan by refusing to moderate her tone or build consensus. The result? The Supreme Court’s left flank looks more fractured than ever, and her influence inside the building is plummeting.
Jackson’s approach has been so relentless and public—she’s taken her crusade to speaking events and festivals, telling anyone who’ll listen that “the state of our democracy keeps me up at night.” Instead of crafting arguments that might sway a majority or even her usual allies, she’s chosen to write for history books and cable news soundbites. The conservative justices, unsurprisingly, have fired back. Amy Coney Barrett accused Jackson of promoting an “imperial Judiciary.” That’s not just a professional disagreement—it’s a public rebuke, and it’s ringing louder each time Jackson files another solo dissent that reads more like an op-ed than a judicial opinion.
Dissent as Political Theater—A Departure from Judicial Norms
Traditionally, Supreme Court dissents serve as a check—a signal for future generations, a warning that the majority’s logic may not stand the test of time. But there’s a difference between a principled legal dissent and what’s now become Jackson’s signature move: dissent as political theater. She’s penned more separate opinions than any justice since 1937, and she’s used them to broadcast her personal anxieties about democracy, executive power, and “existential threats.” While Justices like Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote passionate dissents, they didn’t routinely break with their own side or use the Court as a megaphone for social commentary.
Jackson’s solo acts aren’t just about “calling out” the conservative majority. She’s increasingly writing as if her fellow liberals—Sotomayor and Kagan—don’t exist, or at least don’t matter. Legal analysts note that she’s been in the majority less than any other justice this term, a sign that her approach is isolating her within the Court. Meanwhile, her colleagues—liberal and conservative—are left working around her, as she pushes boundaries and norms that have governed the Supreme Court for generations. Her fans in the media may love it, but inside the marble halls, it’s not winning her any friends—or any votes.
Supreme Court Legitimacy on the Line Amid Judicial Soap Opera
Jackson’s style isn’t just causing headaches for her colleagues; it’s fueling a broader legitimacy crisis for the Supreme Court. Her dissenting opinions, heavy on rhetoric and light on persuasion, play directly into the hands of critics who claim the Court has become a partisan battleground. Instead of bolstering public trust, her high-profile warnings about democracy and rule of law risk making the Court seem just as political as Congress or the White House.
Legal scholars and practitioners are divided, with some praising Jackson’s candor and others warning that her approach is eroding the Court’s institutional credibility. Even supporters worry that her relentless focus on public engagement and historical record is coming at the expense of real, tangible influence on actual decisions. As the Court continues to tackle high-stakes cases—immigration, executive power, environmental regulation—the stakes are only getting higher. The question now isn’t whether Jackson will keep dissenting. It’s whether anyone—on the left or right—will keep listening.
