Lower than two hours after the Supreme Court ended a wrenching term last month, it welcomed a latest member. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had been waiting within the wings since she was confirmed by the Senate in April, took two oaths of office — and joined a court in turmoil.
“She’s entering the court at a time of just crazy polarization after a really momentous term and after this huge leak from the spring,” said David Lat, a legal commentator, referring to the disclosure in May of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, which closely resembled the choice last month that did away with the constitutional right to abortion.
“I’m sure her colleagues will probably be very welcoming to her, but there could be quite a bit more circumspection across the constructing,” said Mr. Lat, the creator of Original Jurisdiction, a newsletter in regards to the law and legal occupation. “It might be a little bit weird.”
In joining the court, Justice Jackson returned to a well-recognized setting. She had served as a law clerk to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, whom she replaced, within the term that resulted in 2000. But that was a really different time — and the differences illuminate each the extraordinary transformation of the institution and the challenges its newest member will face.
In an end-of-term overview that July, The Recent York Times’s Supreme Court reporter, Linda Greenhouse, asked John G. Roberts Jr., then a distinguished lawyer, for his assessment of the court’s major decisions.
“Which cases were most visible to the general public this 12 months?” asked Mr. Roberts, who would turn into chief justice five years later. “Probably school prayer, abortion and Miranda, and the conservatives lost all three.”
The term that ended last month also featured cases on school prayer, abortion and Miranda. This time around, though, the conservatives won all three.
The court in 2000 was about halfway through an 11-year stretch with none changes in personnel, the second-longest such period in its history.
It was by most accounts a completely satisfied place. That too has modified.
“This just isn’t the court of that era,” Justice Clarence Thomas said at a conference in Dallas two weeks after the leak, adding: “We actually trusted one another. We could have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family.”
Since Chief Justice Roberts’s arrival in 2005, there have been seven latest justices. The one current member of the court who was serving in 2000, when Justice Jackson was a law clerk, is Justice Thomas.
After she was sworn in last month, Justice Jackson alluded to the undeniable fact that her appointment as the primary Black woman to serve on the court was a milestone. “I’m truly grateful,” she said in an announcement, “to be a part of the promise of our great nation.”
Justice Breyer, in his own statement, said his successor would slot in well on the court. “I’m glad for my fellow justices,” he said. “They gain a colleague who’s empathetic, thoughtful and collegial.”
Those qualities, coupled along with her familiarity with the inner workings of the court, may serve Justice Jackson well. However the court’s six-member conservative majority seems poised to assertively push the law to the proper, and its most junior member could have little ability to slow, much less to thwart, its ambitions.
The Supreme Court’s Major Decisions This Term
Card 1 of seven
A momentous term. The U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions during its latest term, including rulings on abortion, guns and religion. Here’s a have a look at a number of the key cases:
School prayer. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court ruled that a Washington football coach at a public highschool had a constitutional right to hope on the 50-yard line after his team’s games.
Separation of church and state. In Carson v. Makin, the court ruled that a Maine program that excludes religious schools from a state tuition program is a violation of the free exercise of faith.
It might, in any event, take a while for Justice Jackson, who spent most of her judicial profession as a trial judge, to feel comfortable with the court’s work.
Justice Thomas, who joined the court in 1991, said he had asked his latest colleagues how long it will take to feel comfortable. “To an individual, they said it took three to 5 years under normal circumstances to regulate to the court,” Justice Thomas said in 1996.
That’s the standard estimate. “So extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis said it took him 4 or five years to feel that he understood the jurisprudential problems of the court,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote of Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who sat on the court from 1916 to 1939.
But Justice Jackson’s experience as a law clerk may speed her acclimation. Six of the ten justices who were once Supreme Court clerks sit on the present court: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Jackson, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Still, the court Justice Jackson knew in 2000 was a unique place, despite the fact that then as now, it was dominated by Republican appointees. Indeed, it was in that sense much more lopsided, with seven justices named by Republican presidents somewhat than the present six.
However the justices’ partisan affiliations in those days didn’t reliably predict their votes.
Two of the members of the court appointed by Republicans — Justices John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter — were liberals. One other two — Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy — were moderates who leaned right. Only the remaining three — Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia — were committed conservatives.
That meant the court’s two Democratic appointees — Justices Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — were very much in the combination on a court that might be unpredictable. Justice Jackson, though she will probably be a part of a three-member liberal wing, could have less room to maneuver.
Today, partisan affiliations are closely aligned with voting patterns in major cases. In decisions issued last month on abortion, guns, religion and climate change, the entire six Republican appointees voted with the bulk and the entire three Democratic ones were in dissent.
Consider the contrasts between the selections Mr. Roberts noted in 2000 and their 2022 counterparts.
In 2000, the court applied principles announced in Roe v. Wade to strike down a Nebraska law that banned a late-term procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. Justice Breyer wrote the bulk opinion in the 5-to-4 decision.
Just seven years later, after Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. replaced Justice O’Connor, the court reversed course in one other 5-to-4 decision, now sustaining the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. After further changes within the court’s personnel, including the addition of three justices appointed by President Donald J. Trump, the court last month overruled Roe entirely.
In 2000, the court was wary of prayer in public schools, ruling that organized prayers led by students at highschool football games violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of presidency establishment of faith.
“The delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to take part in an act of spiritual worship,” Justice Stevens wrote for almost all in a 6-to-3 decision. 4 Republican appointees voted with the bulk.
In June, in a 6-to-3 decision divided along partisan lines, the court ruled that a football coach at a public highschool had a constitutional right to hope on the 50-yard line, discounting the potential for coercion.
Perhaps probably the most surprising decision of the 2000 term was the 7-to-2 ruling reaffirming Miranda v. Arizona, the 1966 decision that required law enforcement officials to issue the familiar warning before interrogations. The choice had been widely criticized, and Congress tried to overturn it.
But Chief Justice Rehnquist, himself a longtime critic of Miranda, wrote for almost all that the warnings had “turn into embedded in routine police practice.” Because the Miranda decision had “announced a constitutional rule,” he wrote, a statute that sought to overrule it was itself unconstitutional.
In June, in a 6-to-3 decision that divided along the familiar lines, the court ruled that law enforcement officials might not be sued under a federal civil rights law for failing to manage the warnings. “A violation of Miranda doesn’t necessarily constitute a violation of the Structure,” Justice Alito wrote for almost all.
Justice Jackson could have hoped that she would have the summer to settle in and prepare for the key cases next term, which starts in October. But there will probably be activity on what critics call the court’s shadow docket before then.
Indeed, the court is considering an emergency application from the Biden administration to undo a trial judge’s ruling blocking the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement. She is going to probably forged her first vote in that case.
Essential cases await Justice Jackson in the subsequent term. In October alone, the court will hear arguments on the role race may play in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act, on the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to implement the Clean Water Act and on whether Andy Warhol committed copyright infringement by counting on a photographer’s image of the musician Prince.
The court may also hear challenges to race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Justice Jackson, who served on one in all Harvard’s governing bodies, has said she’s going to recuse herself from the Harvard case. The 2 cases have been consolidated, however the court is more likely to decouple them to permit Justice Jackson to listen to the one against U.N.C.
Justice Jackson’s judicial record gives few hints about how she’s going to rule in any of the approaching cases, though it is going to be a surprise if she strays removed from the approach of Justice Breyer, her mentor, or the 2 liberal members of the present court, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.
Her arrival, though, may nonetheless be a welcome reset. As Justice Byron R. White liked to say, each time there’s a latest justice, “it’s a unique court.”