A Former Public Defender Joins the Supreme Court
Newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has a good track record on cases involving qualified immunity.

Libertarians can anticipate many future disagreements with the U.S. Supreme Court's newest confirmed justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Jackson's record on criminal justice issues offers some cause for optimism.
Consider Patterson v. United States, a 2013 case involving the arrest of an Occupy D.C. protester, Anthony Michael Patterson, for using profanity in a public park. Officers told Patterson to stop cursing at Tea Party activists. When Patterson refused, he was arrested for disorderly conduct. The charges against him were later dropped.
Patterson sued the officers over his bogus arrest, which was triggered by nothing more than the lawful exercise of his First Amendment rights in a public place. The officers responded by invoking qualified immunity, a controversial doctrine that routinely shields state officials from lawsuits alleging constitutional violations.
Jackson, then a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, practically scoffed at the officers' arguments and denied them qualified immunity. "The right to be free from a retaliatory arrest in the absence of probable cause is clearly established in this jurisdiction," she ruled. "A police officer is unquestionably on notice that arresting a speaker solely based on the content of his speech and without probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime is a violation of the First Amendment."
This was not necessarily an open-and-shut case. Other federal judges have granted qualified immunity in cases involving even more egregious police misconduct.
Jackson also will bring some much-needed professional diversity to the Court. As Cato Institute criminal justice scholar Clark Neily has pointed out, there is a "wild imbalance" on the federal bench "between judges who used to represent the government in court and judges who used to challenge the government in court." Between 2005 and 2007, Jackson worked as an assistant federal public defender in Washington, D.C., a job that involved much battling against the government inside and outside the courtroom. Let's hope that experience stuck with her.
Libertarians may also take heart from an exchange between Jackson and Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) during her March confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. After Cornyn complained that the Supreme Court had thwarted the will of the majority when it struck down certain democratically enacted state regulations, Jackson calmly and correctly replied: "Well, senator, that is the nature of a right. When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Libertarians can anticipate many future disagreements with the U.S. Supreme Court's newest confirmed justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.”
Not based on any coverage of her from Reason.
Reasontarians? Kochtarians? Liberal Democrats indulging in a bit of slightly smaller government cosplay?
Agreed. An actual libertarian publication would have already laid out those points of disagreement in detail.
But Root, like most every other writer here is simply a paid errand boy.
I’ve made so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. (res-32) It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do.
.
For more details visit:>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Like that fact the she inherently does not believe in natural rights?
she inherently does not believe in natural rights?
The only rational position.
Will these disagreements with her be put down as racism, white supremacy or misogyny? Asking for a friend because we know it will never be because of an actual difference in opinion on what the law is.
You’ll have to ask Brandyshit.
Although we Koch / Reason libertarians supported Biden primarily because of immigration, we also knew he'd promote our billionaire benefactor's soft-on-crime #FreeTheCriminals and #EmptyThePrisons agenda. The KBJ appointment proves it.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
Don’t forget the pedophiles that could join Antifa.
It is a shame that the most qualified persons for the position were excluded from consideration from the beginning of the selection process.
Reasontarians say "dats raciss."
But weren't we led to believe that conservatives would not allow a Black woman to be confirmed to the Supreme Court?
I'm sure I read that in the Washington Post several times.
They tried Jerry. Don't you read the paper?
Now Gov Desantis is trying to break up 2 black leaning Congressional districts so more white Republicans can get elected. The GOP is the white man's party and is not even trying to hide it anymore.
PS Currently, in a state that Obama won twice, Trump twice, and DeSantis barely won by 30k votes, there are 16 GOP congressional reps and 11 Democrats. Under his plan - now the law unless thrown out - there will be 20 GOP majority seats and 8 Democratic majority seats.
Pathetic.
Act Blue is not sending us their better trolls. Why they retain you as their paid troll is indicative of the latest Leftist Prog apparatchik talking points: lie, lie and lie some more
Appeals court reinstates DeSantis redistricting map
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/court-reinstates-desantiss-congressional-map
The ruling is the latest in a string of head-spinning back-and-forth battles over the map. Last week, a judge issued a temporary injunction and ordered the state to use a new map that restored the state's 5th Congressional District. DeSantis fought with fellow Republicans in the state legislature to change the 5th Congressional District, which he decried as racially gerrymandered......The ruling on Friday marks another redistricting loss for Democrats following a New York special master proposal on Monday that obliterated Democratic gains in the Empire State and put several incumbent Democrats on collision courses for contentious primary elections
Thanks Yat, but no one pays me to comment. Of course no one would suspect that of you.
but no one pays me to comment.
oh, but they do. Act Blue trolls never disclose their trolling for dollars and copy/paste the talking points you do verbatim
David Brock taught you all too well his bat shit craziness
black leaning
Subtle racist joke or revealed political assumption/preference? Yes!
When Patterson refused, he was arrested for disorderly conduct
Amateurs. They should have dragged him by his ankles as if he had been a special ed student.
Patterson sued the officers over his bogus arrest, which was triggered by nothing more than the lawful exercise of his First Amendment rights in a public place.
not true. He was doing just fine exercising his 1A rights until he started using profane language. Profane language is never acceptable. What the fuck is wrong with you pieces of shit cock suckers?
/ sarc
Jackson, then a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, practically scoffed at the....
That is odd since the only people IIRC who scoff are biologists and she stated she is not a biologist.
{heard in background: biologists scoffing}
So to Damon and the pedo defender the rights of marxists to instigate riots shall not be infringed. I've never seen you or the rest of the leftist dimwits here have a problem with removing opposition to your favored activists for disturbing the peace when they are confronted by antifa, in fact you all seem to delight in calling them a "threat to our democracy"
Jackson also will bring some much-needed professional diversity to the Court.
Meh. Clarence Thomas fills the bill for representing blacks. Blacks comprise 12% of the US population. And yet Democrats routinely demonstrate their racism against blacks by trying to lynch Thomas.
Hispanics comprise 20% of the US population, so we need one more Hispanic on the bench, like Miguel Estrada. Oh wait. Democrats showed their racism against Hispanics too
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/08/08/minority-retort
"For Rove, the most painful example was Miguel Estrada, who had worked in the Solicitor General’s office, and who was Bush’s first appellate-court nominee, in 2001. Estrada withdrew his name twenty-eight months after being nominated. During the confirmation struggle, Estrada’s wife miscarried; in November, 2004, she died, of an overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills. The death was ruled accidental by the medical examiner. Rove said that Mrs. Estrada had been traumatized by the nastiness of the process."
Professional diversity, not ethnic diversity. She was a public defender.
Not supporting her, just saying.
What professional diversity? She went to Harvard law, cleared for Robert's, and has been a DC lawyer her entire career. That's not professional diversity in any sence of the word.
Want professional diversity? Get a non lawyer from not ivy league.
I am sure she* will prove to be as effective as every other diversity hire I ever worked with.
* (BTW she IS a woman, even of she doesn't know what that is)
"When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation."
"The Science is settled!"
Ask her what the limitations are on rights that "shall not be infringed".
https://www.nssf.org/articles/judge-jackson-affirms-second-amendment-rights-but-questions-linger/
You can read her exact answers to questions like that in her confirmation hearings. If she's a hardened Team Blue partisan ready to "own the chuds" she didn't play one on TV.
She refused to answer what a woman is.
That alone, because it's such an obvious accommodation made for purely partisan political reasons, should've been disqualifying and indicates she will rule as an activist rather than impartial judge.
She certainly takes the CRT position that any rule she disagrees with can be thrown out as racist. Which I hope means that the new Congress will be able to quickly impeach her for racism.
What about everything prior to her nomination?
Her decision is idiotic and a harbinger of the communism to come. The cops submitted a 'Gerstin' (probably cause) affidavit saying he disturbed the peace by refusing to stop screaming obscenities causing a crowd to gather. But since his complaint against the police, made little mention of the Gerstein affidavit - in the end, Brown chooses to ignore ALL facts, and concludes, '....Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to consider the Gerstein affidavit and will decide the instant motion SOLEly on the facts alleged in the complaint...' In other words, only the alleged facts of the defendant will be used. This is like using ONLY the facts submitted by Jesse Smollett. Based on total bull shit, she then she goes on to write 29 pages of 'truth' and 'law' but based on disputed facts, and rail roads the cops who simply did their job.
What? The very sentence before your quote is
"Defendants [the police officers] did not want their motion converted into one for summary judgment based on the Court's consideration of the Gerstein affidavit, and suggested that the Court consider only the facts alleged in the complaint."
In other words, the police asked for the Gerstein affidavit to be dismissed.
Spoken like someone who lacks any appreciation or understanding of the difference between a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion for Summary Judgment, or any other legal proceeding. How communist of her to punish those poor defendants by granting their Motion/request with respect to the scope of her analysis:
"at the hearing, counsel for the defendants indicated that Defendants did not want their motion converted into one for summary judgment based on the Court's consideration of the Gerstein affidavit, and suggested that the Court consider only the facts alleged in the complaint."
not a biologist.
Yeah I'm not hopeful with this one.
Rejoice, our civil liberties are clearly so much safer now. I wonder how this Justice got past the Dem screening protocols though.
Diversity hire.
I was amused that she did not know what a woman was as it one one of the 2 requirements for a Biden nominee.
The other was that she be black.
I wonder if she can define who is a black person.
It is plain that she will toe the Democrat line in her rulings
>>I wonder if she can define who is a black person.
not a thing, so can anyone?
Another lock-step vote for the left. Guaranteed she votes to uphold the power of the state on any number of issues.
Not happy that a Democrat got a nomination through. But then again, they ARE going to get a nomination through because we can't just sit around until the next time a Republican gets into the White House. I mean, really.
So as far as Democrat SCOTUS nominations go, Jackson is not so bad. If all you care about is abortion, abortion, and abortion, you've already changed your underwear three times this morning. But I just don't see her as the Woketarian Identity Obsessed Progressive Kamala Clone I was expecting to come from Biden's office. So I'm mildly pleased that Jackson made it.
If you think she is not so bad you need to kill yourself
Didn’t she claim during her p/d years that the Gitmo detentions were war crimes committed by Bush and others? If so, that seems mighty close to espousing activism rather than appropriate legal advocacy.
But something tells me that this writer wants on the court an activist of this species.
What’s the over/under on the SCOTUS leaker being identified before she is seated? Asking for historical reference.
Won't happen. Because he/she knows his/her law career would be over.
The only way we'll find out is if the recipient of the leak, or some third party, attempts blackmail and his/her bluff is called.
"Between 2005 and 2007, Jackson worked as an assistant federal public defender in Washington, D.C."
Two years earlier in the century, she had a job where she challenged the part of the govt which is permissible for the left to challenge? That should outweigh all the progressive values she imbued.
She wasn't part of oral arguments for the Dobbs case, she won't be part of the decision even if she is on the court roster in time for the decision to be announced, because Stevens won't retire until end of term.
You know surprisingly little for someone who spouts so much bullshit.
"Roots a smart dude"
Evidence?