In the News

Jackson’s record shows hostility toward constitutional values like free speech, religious liberty, and the sanctity of life. In 2001, she co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on behalf of a litany of pro-abortion organizations, including the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Her brief in the McGuire v. Reilly case repeatedly disparaged pro-life sidewalk counselors—most often comprised of moms, grandmothers, nuns, and women who regret their own abortions. She unjustly attacked these loving ministers as a “hostile” and “in-your-face” “gauntlet,” all while ignoring the very real hostility—whether from abusive partners, parents, or peers—that can coerce reluctant women into the abortion decision.

Pro-life advocates often engage in silent prayers outside abortion clinics. Jackson labeled these activities as “chaotic scenes” that should be stripped of First Amendment protections because they “are not pure speech, but rather are a form of expression analogous to labor picketing.”

Americans can disagree on the issue of abortion and even dispute the efficacy of peaceful protests, but Jackson’s brief lacks the even-handedness one would expect of a future Supreme Court Justice tasked with protecting the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans. Reading Jackson’s brief, one quickly concludes that she has quite firmly chosen sides. Litigants in cases pitting abortion against core First Amendment rights would likely face a “home team” umpire in Justice Jackson, as she roots for abortion activities and jeers the free speech of pro-life advocates. In short, Jackson is not the neutral arbiter of the law one should expect to see on the Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson’s thumb on the scales for abortion over free speech may be a product of her mentorship. She clerked for Justice Breyer in 1999-2000. Interestingly, the year of her clerkship saw multiple decisions in cases involving abortion and religious expression.

For instance, during Jackson’s clerkship, Justice Breyer wrote the opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart. His opinion for the Court struck down a Nebraska law that banned the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. That term, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Court also severely limited student-initiated, student-led religious speech at public school football games.

With such a record there is little surprise that so many far-left activist organizations would endorse Judge Jackson’s judicial appointments. And, once on the bench, her activism did not stop.

In 2018, Judge Jackson ruled in favor of a federal employee union that sought to force collective bargaining, despite acknowledging that the President has both statutory and constitutional authority to issue executive orders pertaining to labor-management relations. Three years later, the AFL-CIO labor union “strongly” recommended Judge Jackson’s confirmation.

Such judicial activism squares with some comments Judge Jackson made at her confirmation hearings. During her confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, she refused to say whether a president may refuse to enforce a duly enacted, constitutional law, and she suggested that public schools that receive federal funding may discriminate against students on the basis of speech.

Judge Jackson’s record speaks for itself. President Biden’s nomination is not merely substituting one liberal jurist for another. It is an aggressive move to push the Supreme Court hard in the direction of the political left.

If confirmed, Americans can expect a Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson to bring a lifetime of political activism to the court of last resort for so many of our freedoms, including free speech and religious liberty.