By Natalie Sandoval, Daily Caller News Foundation | June 23, 2025
Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and its powers. You’d think it slightly nonsensical for a justice of said court to quibble with that very Constitution. Ketanji Brown Jackson has never much cared for sense.
In a scathing dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accuses her colleagues of viewing a case through the “distorted lens of pure textualism.” Textualism is a school of interpretation that approaches the law, including the Constitution, according to its plain meaning. A textualist asks: What would an ordinary person understand this law to mean?
“I have no quarrel with relying on common sense as a general matter,” Jackson claims in another dissent issued Friday, which also took aim at textualist interpretations. “But we should acknowledge that what counts as a ‘commonsense’ inference to the Justices on this Court may not be viewed as such by others.”
Jackson comes just short of accusing her fellow justices of having a vested interest in the outcome of the case, writing, “this case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.” The case before the court, Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), concerned the energy company’s ability to challenge government mandates. Jackson expressed fear for the “reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests.”
Delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed back against Jackson’s suggestion that “the Court does not apply standing doctrine ‘evenhandedly.’”
“A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion,” he wrote.
In lieu of text, what approach does Jackson opt for?
“Looking to a statute’s purposes helps us to understand—not override— that statute’s text,” she writes in her June 20, 2025 dissent. “Too often, this Court closes its eyes to context, enactment history, and the legislature’s goals when assessing statutory meaning. I cannot abide that narrow-minded approach.”
Pursuing the spirit, not simply the letter, of the law is a worthy goal. But given Jackson’s track record, her objection to “textualism” is suspect. Not being able to define the word “woman” should be disqualifying for the office of kindergarten teacher, much less Supreme Court Justice. Where Jackson invokes “context,” some might read: “room to interpret the law to suit my own deranged political ends.”
Natalie Sandoval is a Patriots writer at the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Original article link
