Justice Samuel Alito took sharp aim at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent on Monday to the Supreme Court’s decision to speed up the implementation of last week’s landmark Louisiana redistricting decision, writing that Jackson’s dissent “lacks restraint” and calling her rationale “baseless and insulting.”
The Supreme Court granted an emergency application to issue its judgment in Louisiana v. Callais immediately, rather than the usual 32-day waiting period, which can be shortened at the court’s discretion. The order allows Louisiana to redraw its congressional map, which the justices ruled was unconstitutional by a 6-3 margin on Wednesday, quickly before the 2026 election. The new Louisiana congressional map could net Republicans at least one seat, while other states have also worked to redraw their maps in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which significantly raised the bar to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits over alleged racial gerrymandering.
The Monday order was granted on an 8-1 margin, with Jackson being the only noted dissent. She issued a sharp dissent from the order, claiming the rest of the high court has “spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”
“Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation. The Court’s decision to buck our usual practice under Rule 45.3 and issue the judgment forthwith is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map,” Jackson wrote, claiming the court abandoned its principle of not changing election rules on the eve of an election.
“The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent,” Jackson said.
Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, attacked Jackson’s dissent, writing that it “cannot go unanswered.”
“The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional,” the opinion said, noting the “constitutional question was argued and conferenced nearly seven months ago.”
“The dissent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution. Nor does the dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting,” Alito’s opinion continued.
Alito took particular issue with Jackson’s claim that the decision to speed up judgment marks an “unprincipled use of power.” He openly questioned what principle of the Supreme Court the decision violated and accused Jackson’s opinion of lacking restraint in its sharp rhetoric.
“That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge. What principle has the Court violated? The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?” Alito said.
“The dissent accuses the Court of ‘unshackl[ing]’ itself from ‘constraints,’” Alito added. “It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.”
SAMUEL ALITO HALTS APPEALS COURT RULING BLOCKING MAIL-ORDER ABORTION PILLS
The tense opinions, tied to a usually dry procedural order, mark the latest instance of justices taking issue with Jackson’s dissenting opinions with sharp language. In last year’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, where the court ruled 6-3 in favor of limiting universal injunctions, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that Jackson’s opinion was “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
The Supreme Court is set to wrap up its term in the coming weeks, as it releases the remaining 35 opinions from cases it heard arguments in this term through the end of June. The court has not announced its next opinion day.