In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests'

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

June 20, 2025, 11:59 AM EDT / Updated June 21, 2025, 12:03 PM EDT


WASHINGTON — Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues Friday in a scathing dissent in a case involving vehicle emissions regulations. In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's ruling gives the impression it favors “moneyed interests” in the way it decides which cases to hear and how it rules in them.

The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations. She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests."

With the Trump administration reversing course on many of former President Joe Biden's environmental policies, including those about California's electric vehicle mandates, the case is most likely moot or soon will be, Jackson wrote, making her wonder why the court felt the need to decide it.

"This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens," she wrote. The case said the producers had legal standing to bring their claims, resting on a theory "that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs," she added. The decision has little practical importance now, but in the future, it "will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act," she said.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/scathing-dissent-justice-jackson-says-supreme-court-gives-impression-f-rcna214104

[Polybius]

1. Since it was 7-2, is she also taking a dig at Kagan?

She was one of the 7.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Kagan has often voted separately from the liberals

including Sotomayor, Jackson, and in the past Breyer and RBG.

[MadameButterfly]

9. What the hell is going on with Kagan?

Does she want a hot planet? If we can't even trust Dem appointed judges how do we ever turn this ship around?

[republianmushroom]

2. No, Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court doesn't

just gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests', it does favor money. Ask Leo and thomas.

[Irish_Dem]

4. Call it like it is. US Supreme Court is full of corrupt traitors who work for the billionaires and our enemies.

They hate Americans and are willfully destroying our country.

They belong in supermax prisons for life.

[Ray Bruns]

5. What's this "impression" bullshit? They absolutely so. Ask Clarence Thomas.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. Deadline: Legal Blog- Justice Jackson mounts a lonely crusade at the Supreme Court

Judicial debates are often done in footnotes. I am NOT a fan of textualism and I agree with Justice Jackson

Justice Jackson mounts a lonely crusade at the Supreme Court

This week’s Deadline: Legal Newsletter examines what a footnote can tell us about the state of play among the justices.
apple.news/Ad_bGcuRfRoa...

— Phyllis B Kantor (@wiselady11.bsky.social) 2025-06-21T01:05:02.904Z

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-dissent-deadline-newsletter-rcna214180

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the footnote in question. It came in her dissent from a decision Friday in a case called Stanley v. City of Sanford. Led by Justice Neil Gorsuch (Jackson’s sometimes-partner in certain libertarian-ish side-quests), the majority ruled against Karyn Stanley, a former firefighter who had sued a Florida city over health-insurance retirement benefits.

But disagreement over statutory interpretation prompted a heated exchange between the majority and the dissent. Gorsuch said Jackson bucked “textualism,” referring to the strict reading of statutes without regard to other considerations, like congressional intent behind the law. The Trump appointee accused the Biden appointee of doing so in an attempt to “secure the result” she sought.

That amounts to fighting words in a profession that prides itself on the narrative that judges decide cases through neutral mechanisms without regard to outcomes.

Jackson fought back in that footnote — footnote 12, to be exact. She said Gorsuch’s accusation of motivated reasoning “stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role.” Indeed, she said, accounting for congressional intent helps avoid injecting one’s view into the law. “By contrast,” she wrote, “pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences.” That is, it’s the majority’s approach that lets judges reach their preferred results.

To be sure, debates over textualism and the judicial role aren’t new. Indeed, Jackson’s predecessor, Stephen Breyer, famously dueled on the subject with Gorsuch’s predecessor, Antonin Scalia.

Textualism has been used by Scalia and others to ignore the intent of congress to get at the desired result. I applaud Justice Jackson for this dissent

[IbogaProject]

10. That is a basic tenant of Common Law

If there is any question about the intent or meaning of the actual words the legislative record is the first step in resolving the ambiguity or to argue against some other interpretation. But due to this often being about money that is typically and now routinely ignored. The problem is with principles of common law it self being ignored and reliance on court rulings like Roe v Wade, this leads to these textual contortions. And even if one favors this sporting style of judicial reasoning it leads to weird contortions as these "judges" twist the law to suit their master's needs, which over time will weaken our legal bedrock.

[LiberalArkie]

8. Well, Duh..