The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Jackson Did Not Wear A Dissent Collar To The Inauguration. She Apparently Wore A Talisman To Ward Off Evil.
Does anyone still want to talk about Martha Ann Alito's flags?
As I watched the Justices enter the Capitol Rotunda, I noticed that Justice Jackson was wearing a distinctive collar. I asked whether it was a dissent collar.
Remember, that RBG wore her dissent collar the day after Trump's 2016 election.
It may be even worse than I thought.
This report in Vogue (which I cannot vouch for) explains:
Over her black robes, the Justice wore a collar made of cowrie shells along with a pair of matching earrings. While the shell was used as currency in a variety of ancient cultures around the world, it was especially prized in African cultures, where it signified prosperity and protection. Meanwhile, the National Museum of African American History and Culture notes that, in America, the shell is thought to be a totem used to resist enslavement. Justice Jackson herself is a descendant of enslaved people. The connection feels particularly prescient on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which happened to coincide with the Inauguration. (This has only happened once before, on Bill Clinton's 1997 Inauguration Day.)
Beyond its status as a protective talisman, the cowrie is also associated with womanhood and fertility. During his first term, Trump—who was found liable for sexual abuse in May 2023—made continuous efforts to erode women's rights, which included appointing Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of attempted rape, to the Supreme Court. Even after Trump left office, his insidious, anti-women agenda continued to rear its head when the conservative-leaning Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
While Justice Jackson has yet to explain the exact meaning of her Inauguration collar, the cowrie shell's multiple meanings point to a sartorial expression of her dissent.
The Justice's symbolic choice followed in the tradition of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose roster of collars communicated her opinions—from the beaded jabot she wore to read a majority ruling, to the metallic necklace that telegraphed her dissent. While she has been photographed on the bench in a variety of statement-making jabots, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's collar for President Trump's swearing-in ceremony sent a particularly powerful message.
Others made the same observation.
I love this so much!
At the inauguration, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wore a distinctive collar adorned with cowrie shells, which are believed to offer protection from evil in African traditions.
This choice mirrors the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's practice of using… pic.twitter.com/BX6WzvwVt5
— Christopher Webb (@cwebbonline) January 21, 2025
Above the Law blares that "Ketanji Brown Jackson Wears Protection From Evil At Trump's Inauguration."
Even if Justice Jackson did not intend to convey this message, there is clearly the (literal) appearance of impropriety. This is not just, as I thought, a fashion faux pas.
Yet, there is not a word about whether this move violates any ethical rules. People praise Jackson like they praised Ginsburg's political sartorial choices. Remember, Justice Jackson is attending the Inauguration, only a few yards away from Trump. But she apparently deems it necessary to wear a talisman to ward off evil? Will Jackson face any recusal motions for all Trump-related cases? Jackson, of all members, should be grateful there is no "binding" Supreme Court ethics code.
Meanwhile, there are never-ending efforts to attack Justice Alito based on the non-political flags his wife chose to fly at their home. Remember almost every single attack on "legal ethics" is just interference, and an attempt to force conservative justices to recuse. There is no there there.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This fucking guy.
Nieporent, how would you feel about me saying THE EXACT SAME THING about you???
Not even “fire TRUCKing”???
It would bother me so much I would probably curl up into the fetal position and sob for 48 hours straight.
I was trying to find the original "this fuckin' guy' quote. Sopranos, right?
I dunno. It's obviously from there, but I don't know if that's the original source or if they borrowed it from something earlier.
Just when we thought Josh Blackman could not get any sillier.
I want the record to be clear that I never thought that. I had faith in him.
The talisman didn't work. "Dr" Jill remained in the room.
Who cares what collar she wears. Or why. If she can't stand POTUS Trump, BFD. Plenty of people do not like POTUS Trump (too bad).
Does anyone want to argue that Justice Jackson permits any personal animus to guide her judicial decisions?
You mean like Judge Shitcan?
I wonder. Will the Clarence Thomas fan club now pile on Mr. Bumble for being "racist"?
Or do their knees jerk one direction only?
It’s certainly pretty fucking stupid, but I’m not sure I see how it’s racist. I’m happy to be persuaded, though.
Bumble:
"Nips"
"Japs"
"Dumb Mick" (Biden)
"Stupid Polack" (Drewski)
"Jamaican voodoo judge" (referring to an African-American federal judge)
"fags" (referring to gay Americans) *
* Ok, the last slur isn't actually "racist" but is sure is after a fashion, in his mind.
Okay that’s pretty bad,
Has she figured what a woman is, yet?
And it protected us from the evil that is her.
She is a spiteful little justice.
Spiteful, not much justice in her - more 'just us'
Not spite as much as contemptuous.
Intentionally offending the judge is called "Contempt of Court" and people face sanctions for it.
This is contempt of Congress -- she is a guest in THEIR "court" and should have behaved herself.
She's gonna be impeached -- not now, and not for this -- but eventually. It's the same thing as (former MA-USA) Rachael Rollins -- I knew she'd crash & burn, I just didn't know how.
How exactly is wearing a shell necklace composed of shells that have a variety of traditional meanings in a variety of traditional cultures showing contempt for Congress?
Especially if we are to also believe that making a fascist salute DOESN’T show contempt?
That is not the definition of contempt of court.
It isn't.
Shorter Dr. Ed: all black women look the same to me.
I thought it was the necklace worn by Jessica Lange in King Kong.
Looks like something you'd buy from the Home Shopping Network.
Collar/Schmollar, when did Big Brain Brett turn into WC Fields???
I still want to talk about Martha Ann! She’s spittin mad!
If Martha Ann spit in Josh’s mouth— do you think he’d swallow it?
Congrats on your verbal skills, dude. You're very eloquent, quite well spoken. If you want people to take you seriously, though, you really should do something about that mop on your head. Seriously - I think you have a lot of potential, if only you worked harder on the soft stuff.
And smile more!
Ineresting observation, but mostly for showing how journalists make up stuff about symbolic significance. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Here, it's just a pretty necklace.
The journalists seem to be accusing Justice Jackson of being a primitive pagan, a wearer of amulets. I doubt it.
On the other hand, it does look like what you call a "dissent collar", so I can well believe she means to imply that, as well as to look stylish. I don't approve if she's trying to be political; I do approve if she's trying to be stylish and succeeding. Women often don't themselves which motive is driving them.
The accusation seems to be that a black woman wore a piece of jewelry that managed to honor both her predecessor's memory as someone who was fond of collars, and MLK day.
How dare she?
What has she ruled that has people already so angry at her in the comments?
I'm still waiting for bookkeeper_Joe to explain how Jackson misunderstood Supreme Court cases in her brief concurrence in Moore v. United States, including his claim that she misstated the holding of a case where she never stated the holding in the first place.
Even if Justice Jackson did not intend to convey this message, there is clearly the (literal) appearance of impropriety.
Wait so Josh, now you think they were right to complain about Alito's flags?
Josh doesn't actually know any black women, apparently. Not a surprise.
Hey man, it’s the beginning of a new semester. Don’t you have lessons to prep and classes to teach?
I think if someone made fun of someone for wearing a kippah, you would, while accepting their legal right to do so, consider that person to be a not very nice person. The stated reason for wearing a kippah is that it's a long-existing Jewish tradition that aims to honour God through a symbolic sartorial choice, to cover one's head as a recognition that He is watching and we should honor Him.
If someone responded "this is an idiotic superstition and magical thinking incompatible with a rational world", I think you'd point out that that's both, socially, anti-semitic, and personally, cruel and unnecessary. Because some things aren't about truth or not, they're just about a core of faith inside your being. People don't need to be mocked for holding personal beliefs about the power or necessity of symbols.
I think you should find someone in your life that you respect and love and ask them to read your writings about this issue in particular and ask them how you come off. It's really concerning behaviour.
You wrote a really emotional and affecting blog post about your Judaism in the wake of 10/7, and I'm not at all sure I understand why you expect any reading to have empathy for you and the pain that you were feeling when this is the way you treat those you don't agree with.
Until the case of Good v. Evil is likely to come before the Supreme Court, I see nothing in legal ethics preventing Justices from expressing their opposition to evil.
I'll say this for Josh Blackman. Very few things can unify the liberals and the conservatives here. But ridiculing Josh's inane stupidity seems to be, as the commercial went, "A game the whole family can play!"
This is almost at a "terrorist fist-bump" level of dumbness. Has there ever been a human being as happy as Josh has been recently? Can his giddiness possibly last all 4 years???
Most Americans will be offended by the collar.
It says "you are ignorant if you don't get my meaning" "you don't matter if you don't get my meaning" "I won't let even the President upstage me" and most importantly "I won't say what I think plainly even to a President elected because he says exactly what he thinks"
Let me see: who appointed Jackson? Joe Biden !! Any more questions.
Person with entirely deserved inferiority complex assumes everyone is calling him ignorant.
Executive order 16301: Supreme Court Justices shall be naked at all official events.
Am I reading this post correctly, that Prof. Blackman thinks Justice Jackson wearing that necklace is possibly an ethics violation?
I notice that the two chaps sitting in front of her are wearing ties. A psychology lecture I once listened to identified ties as a symbolic representation of male genitalia, which we dangle around our throats to detract predators from the real target. Given that a notorious sexual predator was sworn in on the day, a powerful symbol of resistance, and they probably have to excuse themselves of all cases involving Trump in the future. Which will create even more jobs for Trump to give away, the things Josh so obviously aims for