Alito rips Jackson’s ‘utterly irresponsible’ solo dissent as Supreme Court fight shakes up 2026 map
Justice Samuel Alito tore into Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s lone dissent in a high-stakes Louisiana redistricting dispute on Monday, calling her arguments "baseless and insulting" after the Supreme Court decided...
By Fox News · Fox News
Justice Samuel Alito tore into Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s lone dissent in a high-stakes Louisiana redistricting dispute on Monday, calling her arguments "baseless and insulting" after the Supreme Court decided to fast-track implementing its recent redistricting ruling ahead of the 2026 midterms. Alito used a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, to directly rebuke Jackson, saying her "dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered." "The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power," Alito wrote, adding that that was a "groundless and utterly irresponsible charge." The clash highlighted Jackson's increasingly isolated position on the court, as she broke not only from the conservative majority but also from her two liberal colleagues, who did not join her dissent. Jackson forcefully accused the Supreme Court of overreach, marking the latest in a pattern of solo dissents in which the Biden-appointed liberal justice has blasted high-profile majority decisions that have frequently favored President Donald Trump and Republicans. MEDIA OUTRAGE OVER SUPREME COURT’S VOTING RIGHTS ACT DECISION COLLIDES WITH REALITY In Monday's order, the high court decided in an unsigned ruling to allow Louisiana officials to quickly move forward with changing their congressional map, which is expected to reshape the state's congressional representation in favor of Republicans ahead of the midterms. Alito argued that delaying the judgment of the high court's 6-3 ruling last month — which significantly narrowed section two of the Voting Rights Act by finding Louisiana's map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander — served no practical purpose. Jackson's reasons for wanting to prolong implementation of the landmark ruling were "trivial at best" and "baseless and insulting," Alito said. "The dissent accuses the Court of 'unshackl[ing]' itself from 'constraints,'" Alito wrote. "It is the dissent’s rh…