NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
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
Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. poses during the formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 7, 2022. The court opened its new term with a calendar including cases that could end the use of race in college admissions.
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 rhetoric that lacks restraint.”
SUPREME COURT HEARS PIVOTAL LOUISIANA ELECTION MAP CASE AHEAD OF 2026 MIDTERMS
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks at an event. (Getty Images)
Jackson had warned that the high court’s intervention risked improperly injecting itself into an active election and creating the “appearance of partiality,” pointing to ongoing voting and legal challenges already unfolding in the state.
Legal experts observed the unusually pointed tone of Alito’s response, suggesting it indicated a deeper internal friction. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the conservative justice appeared to reach a breaking point in responding to Jackson’s criticism.
“Justice Alito had had enough,” Turley wrote. “He noted that her reliance on the 32-day period was a ‘trivial’ objection that put form above substance since no party had asked for reconsideration. It would be waiting for 32 days for no purpose, while the other parties had stated a reasonable and pressing need to finalize the opinion.”
Turley added that Alito took particular issue with Jackson’s accusation that the Supreme Court was acting in an “unprincipled” manner.
Voting rights activists protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 15, 2025, as the court prepares to hear arguments challenging Louisiana’s congressional map. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The dispute centered on the Supreme Court’s procedural rule that typically allows about 32 days before a judgment is formally sent down to lower courts. Alito emphasized that the rule is flexible and intended primarily to allow time for rehearing petitions, which he signaled were not expected in this case.
The Supreme Court’s decision Monday sends Louisiana into a scramble to implement a new map as ballots have already been sent to voters and the state’s primary has been paused. The ruling is expected to have broader implications across the country as state election officials and courts attempt to finalize constitutionally compliant maps in time for the upcoming election.
