When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson opens her mouth during oral arguments, you never quite know if you’re going to get a serious legal argument or a moronic lecture lifted straight from a DEI seminar. On Wednesday, she delivered more of the latter, once again proving she’s an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.
The case at hand, Louisiana v. Callais, addresses whether Louisiana’s new congressional map violates the Equal Protection Clause by creating a second majority-black district. But instead of approaching the issue with any regard for constitutional standards or historical precedent, Jackson decided to compare the plight of black voters to people with disabilities trying to access buildings before the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Jackson actually suggested that the inability to draw more race-based districts in a state is somehow analogous to wheelchair users facing inaccessible steps before 1990. In her mind, both reflect “inherent discrimination,” and just as Congress required building owners to install ramps, she argued, perhaps lawmakers should impose legal “accessibility” for minority voters by guaranteeing racially proportional political outcomes. This kind of thinking would be laughable if it weren’t coming from someone in a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land.
I guess she thought her analogy was supposed to be profound. Instead, it was absurd. The Americans with Disabilities Act deals with unintentional physical barriers that prevent people with disabilities from entering buildings. I’m a recovering architect, so I know all about it.
The Voting Rights Act, by contrast, was a blunt response to the deliberate, systemic oppression of black voters under Jim Crow. Literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, intimidation — these were designed to keep black Americans from the ballot box. The VRA smashed those barriers and enforced the 15th Amendment, which guarantees the right to vote regardless of race. Jackson’s comparison isn’t just illogical; it’s historically clueless. The two are entirely different legal frameworks. Jackson’s conflation of them shows either a shocking misunderstanding of the law or a willful attempt to inject racial politics into every constitutional question she touches.
Recommended: Democrats Just Got Some Bad News About the Schumer Shutdown
Her comments demonstrate that she’s not interpreting the law; she’s trying to redesign it. By equating racial gerrymandering with accessibility, she implicitly argues that America’s political systems must be engineered to produce proportional racial outcomes, constitutional boundaries be damned. That’s not equal protection under the law; that’s equality by quota, the precise thing the Fourteenth Amendment was written to prevent. What she’s proposing — a permanent race-based reengineering of voting maps — is not only unworkable but deeply corrosive to the idea of a colorblind society.
“For years, the requirement to have majority-minority congressional districts has plagued courts and poisoned the redistricting process in legislatures across the country,” Jason Snead, Executive Director of Honest Elections Project, said in a statement following oral arguments. “Courts are reading the law to require racial gerrymanders to remedy racial gerrymanders. Race has no role in redistricting. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to get back to the basics and lay down a marker for race neutral redistricting in Louisiana v. Callais, and it is our hope that they choose to do so when the opinion is issued.”
Of course, it’s no surprise that Justice Jackson supports race-based gerrymandering. She was elevated to the Supreme Court not for legal brilliance, but for checking the right diversity boxes. Her record reflects that: her opinions read like activist manifestos, and even allies quietly avoid joining her. According to past reports, she talks more than any other justice, with fellow leftist Sotomayor sometimes reminding her to let others speak. She’s admitted she’s “not afraid to use” her voice, treating the courtroom like a megaphone for her crusade. This isn’t judicial temperament; it’s activist swagger.
But Jackson’s behavior should still serve as a cautionary tale for the country. When merit gives way to DEI ideology at the highest levels of government, you don’t just erode public confidence; you compromise the very principles of justice itself. Ketanji Brown Jackson isn’t expanding rights or fairness; she’s shrinking them to fit the narrow confines of her politics. And that’s something no republic built on equal justice can afford.
