Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a stunning bit of judicial wisdom today: “Just trust me on this.”
The Supreme Court sat for oral argument this morning for Louisiana v. Callais, a redistricting case concerning the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional map.
A district court order mandated the creation of an additional majority-black district in Louisiana to avoid “vote dilution,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas notes. Plaintiffs challenging Louisiana allege “that the congressional map’s second majority-black district amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” (RELATED: SCOTUS Hears Out Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Against USPS)
Jackson proposed that these racially drawn district lines may not be unconstitutional, because black people are basically equivalent to the disabled.
Ketanji Brown Jackson literally and directly compares black people not electing their preferred candidates to disabled people not being able to enter buildings
“They don’t have equal access to the voting system. They’re disabled.” pic.twitter.com/aCJXeBwHTl
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 15, 2025
“I guess, I’m thinking of it, of the fact that remedial action absent discriminatory intent is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws, and my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the [Americans with Disabilities Act],” Jackson began.
“Congress passed the [ADA] against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities. And so it was discriminatory in effect, because these folks were not able to access these buildings. And it didn’t matter whether the person who built the building or owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary, that’s irrelevant. Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess, I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here.”
Permit me to explain.
A person without legs is different in kind than a black person.
Mandating individual public access to buildings is different in kind than mandating racial minorities control entire districts.
“The idea in Section 2 is that we are responding to current day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they do not have equal access to the voting system. Right, they’re disabled,” Jackson argued.
Jackson embarrassed herself elsewhere in oral argument, getting snippy with Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga.
BREAKING: Ketanji Brown Jackson just got TRIGGERED after the LA Solicitor General EMBARRASSED her.
After saying “I don’t understand,” she CUT HIM OFF mid-sentence, and then it sounded like she STORMED OFF after interrupting him.
She has to be the DUMBEST JUSTICE EVER. pic.twitter.com/IvMcOunbXA
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) October 15, 2025
“Wait, so, can I just ask, why is that not a compelling state interest? To identify areas in which that problem is occurring,” Jackson questioned.
“Your honor, of course, as this court recognized in SSFA, states can remedy —”
Aguiñaga was likely referring to the Social Security Fairness Act, which increases social security benefits for some workers, including federal employees and teachers (in many states).
“No, I’m not talking about the remedy, I’m not talking about —” Jackson interrupted. (RELATED: Attorney Explains Free Speech To Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson)
“So, if I’m right, that Section 2 is about identifying the problem, then requiring some remedy, I don’t understand why your answer to Justice [Elena] Kagan’s question about, ‘Is this a compelling state interest?’ is ‘No.’ The answer is obviously ‘yes,’ that you have an interest in remedying the effects of racial discrimination that we identify using this tool. Whether you go too far in your remedy is another issue, right.”
“Your honor, I think step zero in all of these cases … is the plaintiffs came in and said, ‘We want another majority black district.’”
“I thought they came in and said, ‘We’re not receiving equal electoral opportunity because our votes are being diluted.’”
“Which is the same way of saying we deserve a second —”
“No it’s not, because, that, again, just trust me on this, the second electoral or second district that one could offer for a problem that we’ve identified,” Jackson interrupted. Yet again.
The man could hardly get a word in edgewise and still made a more coherent case than Jackson.
Jackson continued: “In this case, the [lower] court said, ‘I see, I’m looking at the factors, I appreciate what you’re saying, you’ve proven that we have this problem,’ and so the next question is how do we go about remedying it.”
“And the problem, Justice Jackson, that the middle district identified was not intentional discrimination — ”
“Why do you need intentional discrimination to remedy the problem I’ve identified?”
“Because if you’re going to use race the way that the Robinson appellants want to use race, in drawing a second majority minority district, you got to have a compelling interest,” Aguiñaga told the justice.
“Thank you!” Jackson snapped, dismissing Aguiñaga.
There’s that even-keeled temperament we’ve come to expect from Justice Jackson.
Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC
Read the full article here
