Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson brings a unique perspective to America’s highest court. Her memoir Lovely One and her judicial record reveal someone who sees law not as abstract theory, but as a force that shapes real lives and communities.
Jackson’s judicial philosophy centers on two key principles: balancing careful legal reasoning with understanding how court decisions affect people, and making complex legal concepts accessible to everyone. Read on to discover how Jackson navigates the delicate balance between following the law and recognizing its consequences.
Table of Contents
The Human Impact of Legal Decisions
One cornerstone of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s judicial philosophy is that law isn’t an abstract intellectual exercise but a powerful force that shapes people’s lives. She believes judges must balance faithful interpretation of the law with a clear understanding of how their decisions affect people and communities. Jackson explains that her experiences with racism and discrimination have shaped her understanding of how legal systems can perpetuate inequality. These experiences have given her insight into barriers that might not be visible to those with different backgrounds, helping her recognize when seemingly neutral practices might have disparate impacts on different communities.
(Shortform note: Jackson’s principle that judges must balance faithful legal interpretation with awareness of human consequences echoes the central conflict of the popular musical Les Misérables, where lawmakers have created unjust policies and enforcers see their role as applying these laws without question or compassion. The show suggests that when laws are unjust, interpretation without consideration of human impact perpetuates harm. Interestingly, Jackson was a “theatre kid” in high school and at Harvard. Research suggests participation in theater builds empathy as actors imagine different perspectives and recognize the complexity of human motivation—skills that might translate to thoughtful judicial decision-making.)
Jackson’s awareness of the law’s human impact became personal when her uncle, Thomas Brown Jr., was sentenced to life in prison for a nonviolent drug offense under mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Though he had participated in a cocaine distribution scheme, his punishment far exceeded that given to many violent offenders, reflecting the racial disparities embedded in drug sentencing policies. He eventually received clemency from President Obama after serving 28 years, but by then, his health had been irreparably damaged by his time in prison.
During her time on the US Sentencing Commission, Jackson advocated for retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced disparities between sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses that disproportionately affected Black defendants. While her arguments were grounded in legal analysis and empirical evidence, they were also informed by her understanding of how these sentencing policies had devastated communities of color.
| How the War on Drugs Is Family History for Jackson In Race After Technology, Ruha Benjamin provides crucial context for understanding Jackson’s perspective on drug sentencing disparities. Benjamin explains that the War on Drugs—a federal effort to combat drug use and distribution via stricter law enforcement—seemed race-neutral but devastated communities of color. President Reagan’s 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act established a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack cocaine (more prevalent in Black communities) and powder cocaine (more common in white communities), despite them being pharmacologically the same drug. This disparity meant that possessing just five grams of crack triggered the same five-year mandatory sentence as 500 grams of powder cocaine. Other laws, including the “three strikes” mandatory minimum law under which Jackson’s uncle was sentenced, further intensified mass incarceration by requiring life sentences for individuals convicted of a third felony. These policies were devastating to Black communities: By 1990, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49% higher than for whites, contributing to mass incarceration that disrupted families, depleted community resources, and stripped voting rights from millions. Jackson saw this devastation firsthand: Although her uncle received clemency, he died less than a year after his release. |
Balancing Experience With Impartiality
Jackson explains that, throughout her career, she’s maintained her awareness of the law’s power to either uplift or devastate. Yet she’s also clear on the judicial role’s limitations. Judges, she explains, have a specific function in American democracy: While legislators create policies, judges interpret and apply those laws to specific disputes. This constraint preserves the democratic process—judges shouldn’t substitute their own policy preferences for those expressed by elected representatives.
Because of this, Jackson emphasizes that personal experience must be balanced with legal methodology. She describes approaching each case with an open mind, focusing on the specific facts and applicable law. This commitment to procedural fairness means that she sometimes reaches decisions that don’t align with her personal policy preferences, but that she believes are required by faithful interpretation of the law.
This nuanced approach reflects Jackson’s judicial philosophy that diversity on the bench enriches legal reasoning rather than undermining it. Having judges with different life experiences doesn’t compromise impartiality, she argues, but enables courts to recognize multiple dimensions of the cases before them. By bringing both exceptional legal qualifications and lived experiences outside the traditional judicial mold to her role, she shows how the court’s work can be strengthened by incorporating diverse viewpoints while maintaining fidelity to legal principles.
| Justice First: Why Both Precedent and Perspective Matter The tension between personal experience and judicial impartiality that Jackson navigates reflects a broader debate about the role of judges in the preservation or evolution of the rule of law. Traditionally, courts (especially the Supreme Court) have been viewed as institutions that protect established legal frameworks, with precedent serving as a stabilizing force. But there are competing visions of how judges should approach this responsibility. Some judges see their role primarily as defenders of precedent, viewing this adherence as crucial for maintaining legal consistency and predictability. Others believe judges must recognize when precedent fails to serve justice and be willing to overturn past decisions when circumstances or understanding changes, as in Brown v. Board of Education’s reversal of the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson. These different approaches often correlate with a judge’s personal experience with the legal system. Those who have witnessed firsthand how seemingly neutral laws can have disparate impacts on marginalized communities may be more inclined to question whether precedent truly serves justice. This perspective aligns with Jackson’s view that diversity on the bench enriches judicial decision-making. The current ideological divide on the Court has only intensified debates about when precedent should be preserved or overturned. Some scholars argue that the Court’s conservative majority has developed new tactics to nullify precedents they dislike without explicitly overruling them, a practice described as “barricading precedent.” Meanwhile, progressive critics contend that the Court has historically protected privilege and wealth more consistently than individual rights—a form of precedent that bears examination. |
Making Justice Accessible: The Power of Clear Communication
Another cornerstone of Jackson’s legal philosophy is her belief that justice requires clarity that enables people to understand what’s happening and why. She explains that the justice system often seems designed for legal insiders rather than the citizens it serves, but a legal system that isn’t comprehensible to the people it governs cannot truly be called just.
When legal processes are opaque and confusing, defendants can’t meaningfully participate in their own defense, make informed decisions about plea agreements, or fully exercise their rights. This undermines the fundamental principle of due process, which demands not just technical adherence to procedures but genuine understanding and participation by those whose lives hang in the balance. As a federal public defender, Jackson saw how this lack of clarity disempowered her clients and compromised the system’s legitimacy in their eyes.
(Shortform note: Why is the law so opaque to begin with? Research shows laws must maintain a certain level of precision to function effectively. This creates complexity which, when simplified, creates uncertainty that leads to more litigation. In other words, simplified language creates interpretive gaps that courts must later fill. For example, a regulation simply requiring hazardous waste sites be “cleaned up” might be easy to read but creates uncertainty that could take years to sort out if the law gives no guidance on “how clean is clean.” Rather than pretending the law can be made simple, Jackson focuses on making it comprehensible to those affected by it.)
As a judge, Jackson carries the goal of making the law accessible into both her courtroom practices and written opinions. She takes time to explain processes to parties appearing before her, particularly those without legal representation. When writing judicial opinions, she seeks to express complex concepts in language that non-lawyers can understand. This emphasis on accessibility reflects Jackson’s understanding of the judiciary’s role in a democracy. When legal institutions operate in ways that exclude all but specialists, she argues, they undermine the public trust essential to their legitimacy. But when courts communicate clearly about their reasoning and processes, they strengthen their connection to the citizens they serve.
(Shortform note: How does accessibility support democracy? Studies show that Americans have little confidence in the nation’s judiciary, in part due to the perception of partisanship. The Supreme Court faces intense scrutiny, with only 47% of Americans viewing it favorably. There’s also a sizable partisan gap in perception: 73% of Republicans view the Court favorably compared to just 24% of Democrats. This political polarization threatens the Court’s ability to function as a neutral arbiter. As legal experts note, courts derive their legitimacy from public respect. By making the judiciary more transparent to citizens, judges like Jackson work to rebuild the essential bridge between courts and the public they serve.)
| Justice Jackson’s Approach to Constitutional Interpretation In the Supreme Court’s consideration of gun ownership restrictions for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson underscored the challenges raised by a strict historical approach to constitutional interpretation. In an episode of The Daily podcast titled “The Supreme Court Tests Its Own Limits on Guns,” legal expert Adam Liptak joined host Sabrina Tavernise to discuss the case. In United States v. Rahimi (decided in 2024), Jackson joined the Court’s majority in upholding a federal law that bars gun possession by those subject to domestic violence protective orders. While Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, Jackson wrote separately to stress the difficulties of applying the framework set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which requires modern gun regulations to be justified through historical analogues. She argued that Bruen’s test leads to problematic gaps between past legal traditions and present-day constitutional issues. Jackson’s perspective reflects the broader interpretive view often associated with the Court’s liberal justices: that constitutional principles should be applied in ways that account for today’s societal realities while still respecting the text. Her approach stands in contrast to conservative justices such as Clarence Thomas, who continue to emphasize original meaning and historical context as the primary lens for constitutional analysis. Through her concurrence in Rahimi, Jackson signaled her belief that rigid reliance on history might inadequately serve modern legal challenges, making the case a clear example of her willingness to highlight the tension between originalist methodology and contemporary needs. |
Learn More About Jackson’s Judicial Philosophy
To gain a deeper understanding of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s judicial approach in its broader context, check out our guide to her book Lovely One.
