Ketanji Brown Jackson criticizes court

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson used a public appearance on May 18 to criticize the Supreme Court’s handling of a Louisiana redistricting dispute, saying the justices must be “really, really careful” not to appear political in an election year. Her remarks came after she wrote alone to object to the court’s decision to move quickly in a case over Louisiana’s congressional map, a dispute tied to the Voting Rights Act and the balance of Black representation in the state. The comments were unusual because sitting justices rarely speak so directly about the court’s own conduct in a pending matter. They also landed as the Trump administration faced a separate dispute over institutional credibility, after settling President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service on terms that drew immediate criticism. ### What exactly did Jackson say about the court? Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Monday that courts are “apolitical” and that the Supreme Court must be “really, really careful” not to do things that can be perceived as political, according to accounts of her remarks at an American Law Institute event in Washington. She said the court’s handling of the Louisiana case risked creating that perception. (abc17news.com) The Louisiana dispute centers on whether the state can move ahead with a congressional map containing two majority-Black districts after the court’s conservative majority acted in a way Jackson criticized. Reports on May 18 and May 19 said Jackson linked her concern to the timing of the case during an election year and to the court’s public standing. ### Why was the Louisiana case so sensitive? (abc17news.com) Louisiana’s map fight is a major voting-rights case because it affects Black representation in Congress and tests how the court applies the Voting Rights Act in redistricting disputes. Jackson’s criticism focused less on the underlying map than on the court’s decision to accelerate action in the case. (twincities.com) The Washington Post and other reports said Jackson’s comments were unusually direct for a sitting justice discussing the court’s own process. Her warning came as the court faces scrutiny over public confidence, a concern she explicitly tied to how its actions are perceived. ### How did the IRS settlement become part of the same credibility debate? (washingtonpost.com) The U.S. government disclosed on May 19 that it would permanently drop tax claims against President Donald Trump as part of a settlement resolving his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The agreement also created a compensation mechanism of roughly $1.8 billion for people who say they were politically targeted, according to NPR, AP-based reports and other accounts published Tuesday. (washingtonpost.com) Politico reported that the Justice Department expanded the settlement to include a pledge that the IRS would no longer pursue claims involving Trump, members of his family and his companies over unpaid taxes. PBS reported acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended both the tax provisions and the nearly $1.8 billion fund. ### Who objected to the Trump deal, and why? Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department’s top lawyer, resigned on May 19, according to reports that said he stepped down hours after the administration announced the fund. (knpr.org) The New Republic, citing the New York Times, identified Morrissey as Treasury’s general counsel and said he had served for seven months. Critics focused on the structure and scale of the fund, which some reports described as an “anti-weaponization” fund. (politico.com) NPR said the settlement barred future examination of current tax issues involving Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization, a provision that intensified questions about how far the executive branch had gone to resolve the case. (newrepublic.com) ### What happens next in both fights? The Supreme Court still has the Louisiana redistricting case before it, and further orders or a ruling would come from the justices in Washington. The IRS settlement, disclosed in documents made public on May 19, is likely to remain under scrutiny from lawmakers, watchdog groups and Treasury officials as details of the compensation fund and its administration emerge. (washingtonpost.com) (knpr.org)