Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is facing sharp criticism for what one constitutional scholar calls a chaotic and politically charged judicial approach. Professor Jonathan Turley, of George Washington University Law School, compared her recent opinions to “Calvinball”—a children’s game with constantly changing rules and no consistent standards.
Justice Jackson recently dissented alone after the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s injunction that blocked President Trump’s decision to cancel $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. The injunction had been issued by a district court without clear legal foundation. In her dissent, Jackson accused her colleagues of playing “Calvinball jurisprudence,” claiming the only rule was that “this administration always wins.”
Turley, writing at The Hill, turned the accusation back on Jackson. He argued that her own legal reasoning reflects the very disorder she denounces. Turley pointed out that Jackson’s “liberated” approach—her own word for her judicial independence—often dismisses precedent in favor of political alignment. He noted that she frequently writes solo dissents that assert personal beliefs rather than apply consistent constitutional interpretation.
Jackson’s style has reportedly caused frustration among other justices. Turley observed that her tone in recent opinions has shifted from collaborative to combative. Instead of persuading colleagues, Jackson has increasingly used her platform to voice political dissent, further politicizing the bench.
Turley concluded that Jackson’s judicial method undermines the integrity of the Court by substituting personal ideology for legal principle. He emphasized that the judiciary’s role is to uphold the Constitution, not to act as a political check against elected officials.
The controversy reflects a broader concern among conservatives that the judiciary is being used to advance ideological agendas. As federal courts face growing scrutiny, the tension between constitutional originalism and activist rulings continues to grow—especially when justices appear more committed to outcomes than law.
