Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Accuses Court of Ensuring Trump Always Wins in NIH Case

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a sharp dissent Thursday criticizing what she described as a pattern of the Supreme Court siding with President Donald Trump’s administration in recent rulings, as reported by Fox News.

Her remarks came in a case involving the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the cancellation of federal grants.

The case centered on NIH’s decision to cancel approximately $783 million in grants that did not align with the administration’s stated priorities. Some of those grants involved research tied to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, COVID-19, and gender identity. The dispute reached the Court through emergency applications, part of what Jackson referred to as the Court’s use of the “shadow docket.”

Trump’s Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

In her dissent, Jackson accused the majority of bending the rules in the administration’s favor. “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,” Jackson wrote.

Jackson, appointed by former president Joe Biden, argued that the NIH cancellations threatened vital research. “So, unfortunately, this newest entry in the Court’s quest to make way for the Executive Branch has real consequences, for the law and for the public,” she said.

The Court’s ruling was divided into two parts. In the first 5-4 decision, the justices allowed NIH’s existing cancellations to move forward. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberal justices to form the majority. In a separate 5-4 decision, the justices kept a lower court block on NIH’s broader directives in place. In that ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Roberts and the liberals, limiting NIH’s ability to cancel future grants.

Barrett explained that while recipients of NIH funding should pursue claims in the Court of Federal Claims, federal courts also retain authority to review challenges related to NIH guidance. She declined to weigh in on the merits of the case at this stage, noting the litigation is still underway.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

[esi random_video_player ttl=”0″]

Jackson, however, rejected this partial outcome. She argued the Court’s decision “preserv[ed] the mirage of judicial review while eliminating its purpose: to remedy harms.”

The rulings produced 36 pages of opinions, longer than many emergency decisions. Jackson’s dissent accounted for more than half of the total.

Legal observers noted Jackson’s increasingly strong language in recent opinions. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that Jackson’s rhetoric has escalated, at times portraying her colleagues as undermining both the Constitution and democratic institutions.

The dispute over NIH funding comes as justices have exchanged pointed criticisms. In a separate high-profile decision earlier this year, Barrett rebuked Jackson for what she described as advocacy of an “imperial judiciary.” In the NIH case, Barrett was again in a pivotal position, splitting her votes between the two sides.

The case now returns to lower courts, where grant recipients are expected to continue challenging the NIH’s cancellations.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.