Written by Rachel Anne Peterson.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently found herself at the center of a brewing controversy after praising Vice President Kamala Harris during an interview on The View. Her positive comments about Harris’s historic presidential run have led some to question whether she might have breached the Supreme Court’s code of conduct, which explicitly discourages justices from engaging in political activities.
Jackson commended Harris for breaking barriers as the first woman of color to secure a major party’s presidential nomination, stating that Harris’s achievement has given “a lot of people hope.” While her words were seemingly innocent, the praise could be interpreted as an implicit endorsement, raising eyebrows among those who believe justices should remain politically neutral. Although Jackson stopped short of explicitly endorsing Harris, her statements have sparked discussions about the fine line between acknowledgment and endorsement.
This situation is particularly ironic given that just days prior, Jackson had expressed support for President Joe Biden’s proposed binding ethics code, which aims to hold Supreme Court justices to stricter ethical standards. Now, her own remarks are being scrutinized under the very guidelines she endorsed.
Ethical Concerns and Double Standards?
The Supreme Court’s code of conduct is clear: justices must avoid any political activity that could be construed as endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office. Jackson’s comments on The View have led some to argue that she may have violated this rule, even if unintentionally. Critics argue that by publicly praising a political figure, she risks being perceived as partial, potentially undermining the Court’s integrity.
Jackson’s statements come amid a larger debate over judicial ethics, fueled by allegations against other justices. For example, Justice Clarence Thomas has been the target of relentless criticism due to his wife’s political activism, while Justice Samuel Alito has faced scrutiny for alleged connections to symbols associated with the January 6 protests. These accusations have primarily come from left-leaning media outlets, leading some to question whether there’s a double standard in how justices are judged based on their political leanings.
The timing of Jackson’s remarks is particularly noteworthy, given her recent backing of Biden’s ethics proposal. Her support for binding rules raises questions about whether she believes such standards should apply uniformly—or if exceptions can be made in cases like her own.
Media Bias and the Targeting of Conservative Justices
Jackson’s comments have also reignited debates over media bias and the disproportionate scrutiny conservative justices face. Left-leaning outlets, such as The New York Times, have been accused of launching unfounded attacks on justices like Alito and Thomas, casting doubt on their impartiality. The Times recently suggested, without concrete evidence, that Alito’s display of certain flags indicated bias in cases related to the January 6 protests and former President Donald Trump.
Similarly, Justice Thomas has been the subject of several negative reports from ProPublica, a leftist nonprofit. These reports have focused on Thomas’s wife’s political activism, leading some to view the coverage as a coordinated smear campaign against the justice. Critics argue that while conservative justices are often vilified for their political connections, liberal justices like Jackson are given a pass for similar behavior.
As the debate over judicial ethics continues, it’s clear that the scrutiny faced by Supreme Court justices is not evenly distributed. Jackson’s comments on Harris, whether intentional or not, have brought this issue to the forefront, raising important questions about the role of politics in the judiciary.
Our Take
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s remarks about Kamala Harris highlight a growing concern: the increasing politicization of the judiciary. While her comments may seem harmless at first glance, they have the potential to erode public trust in the Supreme Court’s impartiality. When justices blur the line between legal interpretation and political endorsement, it risks turning the Court into just another battleground in the partisan war. This trend is dangerous for our democracy, as it undermines the very principle that the judiciary should be above politics.
In a time when trust in institutions is already at an all-time low, it’s crucial for justices to uphold the highest ethical standards. Jackson’s words, though well-intentioned, may inadvertently contribute to the erosion of this trust. If we allow justices to express political opinions, even subtly, we open the door to further politicization of the Court—a prospect that should concern all Americans.
