Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court ‘Fans the Flames’

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a warning about the nation’s highest court in her latest dissent over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s access to Social Security systems.

Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court’s public information office email for comment.

Why It Matters

Jackson, the newest justice on the bench, warned that conservative justices are rushing to assist President Donald Trump’s administration in the ruling handed down last week. Her warning comes as public trust in the Supreme Court remains low—the Pew Research Center found in August 2024 that a majority of American—51 percent—view the court unfavorably, while only 47 percent view the court favorably. Until 2022, Americans viewed the court favorably for decades.

What to Know

The court allowed DOGE, the task force aimed at cutting federal spending, to gain access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records last Friday. The relief came after U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander blocked the task force from gaining access to the systems over concerns about privacy implications.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Jackson raising concerns about the court’s ruling. When deciding questions like whether to grant or block an order issued by a lower court, the court assesses several factors including whether the applicant would face irreparable harm by allowing the stay to continue.

In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the government did not substantiate its stay request “by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm” if the court allowed the block to stay in place awaiting a final verdict.

Jackson said the only “urgency” underlying the application is the “mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.”

“That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks,” Jackson wrote. “But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.”

Jackson is “clearly expressing her frustration with the use of the shadow docket to make public policy, something the Court’s conservatives have been increasingly willing to do,” Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek.

“Public trust in the Court has fallen significantly in recent years, and Justice Jackson is likely linking the decline in public support for the Court to the growth in the use of the shadow docket,” Collins said.

Jackson issued a similar warning in the case Noem v. Doe in May.

The case dealt with whether the administration could end a program giving residency to several countries facing domestic turmoil. She wrote the court “botched” its assessment and required “next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm.”

What People Are Saying

Collins told Newsweek: “I think Justice Jackson’s interpretation that the Court is rushing to side with the Trump Administration is a reasonable read of things. However, this probably has more to do with ideological alignment with the goals of the Trump Administration than with a particular affinity for President Trump. For instance, the Court’s conservatives also sided with the Trump Administration in a case that would have required DOGE to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests.”

SSA Commissioner Bisignano to Newsweek via X last Friday: “The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.”

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote on X on Friday: “MAJOR UPDATE: The Supreme Court just handed DOGE the keys to all the sensitive personal information Social Security has on file — your income, benefits, health records, and more. Why do Donald Trump and his cronies need access to millions of Americans’ private data? It’s absurd.”

What Happens Next

Several pieces of Trump’s agenda are facing legal battles, and the Supreme Court will continue playing a major role in determining whether his policies are constitutional or not moving forward. This has major implications for economic, immigration and social policy moving forward.