Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s scathing dissent highlights growing partisan tensions within the Supreme Court, as she criticizes her colleagues for allegedly prioritizing the Trump administration over scientific integrity in a key NIH grants ruling.
Justice Jackson, a Biden appointee, took issue with the Court’s recent decisions in a case related to the National Institutes of Health, which canceled approximately $783 million in grants that conflicted with the Trump administration’s priorities. In her dissent, she accused her colleagues of engaging in what she described as ‘Calvinball jurisprudence,’ a reference to the game where rules are made inconsistently for self-serving purposes. According to Jackson, this approach has allowed the Trump administration to bend the laws to its benefit, with the Court’s majority seemingly bending over backwards to accommodate the administration’s agenda.
Her dissent was particularly scathing, suggesting that the Court’s current approach undermines the very principles of judicial review and the balance of power between the branches of government. She argued that the Court’s decision in the NIH case has real-world consequences, impacting biomedical research and public trust in scientific endeavors. Jackson’s words echoed the sentiments of some legal scholars, who have noted a growing pattern of rhetorical intensity in her opinions, with some suggesting her dissent represents a shift from the more measured tone she displayed when she first joined the Court.
In a separate opinion addressing the same case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, rejected the idea that the Massachusetts federal court had the authority to review challenges on the NIH’s directives regarding grants. Barrett, however, emphasized the importance of judicial review and the need for courts to ensure that the executive branch does not overstep its authority. Barrett’s decision, which sided with the three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts, reflected the complexity of the legal arguments at play, with the Court’s differing opinions highlighting the ideological divide that has become more pronounced in recent years.
The fractured nature of the Court’s decision, which resulted in an extensive 36-page opinion, underscores the high stakes of the case and the deepening ideological divides within the judiciary. Justice Jackson’s dissent, which made up over half of the total, highlights the growing tensions between the Court’s liberal and conservative factions, particularly in regards to the role of the judiciary in checking executive power and ensuring the protection of scientific research.