Speaking at an event in Indianapolis on Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed growing concern about the health of American democracy, calling on citizens to stay engaged and vigilant amid rising political tension and legal battles.
During a public Q&A following a discussion about her recent book, Jackson was asked in a rapid-fire round what issue keeps her up at night. Her answer was direct:
“I would say the state of our democracy,” she responded. “I’m very focused on encouraging people to pay attention, to care, and to stay invested in what’s happening in our country and our government.”
Though she did not elaborate on specific threats, her comments follow a series of forceful dissents in recent Supreme Court rulings, many of which have cleared the path for President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive actions. Jackson has become one of the Court’s most prominent liberal voices, warning of increasing judicial overreach and its long-term impact on democratic institutions.
In a blistering dissent this week, Jackson criticized a ruling that allowed the Trump administration to proceed with a dramatic downsizing of the federal government.
“This court sees fit to step in now and release the president’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” she wrote. “This decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
Jackson has consistently avoided mentioning Trump by name in public appearances, including Thursday’s event hosted by the Indianapolis Bar Association. Still, her writings and speeches suggest mounting alarm over the direction of both the Court and the broader political climate.
Earlier this year, at a judicial conference in Puerto Rico, Jackson warned about coordinated attacks on the judiciary:
“The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government,” she said. “They ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.”
In another sharply worded dissent last month, Jackson opposed the Court’s ruling that weakened the ability of lower courts to block executive policies — in that case, related to Trump’s controversial attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order.
“Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway,” she wrote. “But this court’s complicity… will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.”
She signed the dissent with what she described as “deep disillusionment.”
The birthright citizenship case also prompted a pointed response from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion and dismissed Jackson’s dissent as detached from established doctrine.
At Thursday’s event, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, who moderated the conversation, asked Jackson if she is ever personally affected by such sharp disagreements on the Court.
“I have a very thick skin,” Jackson replied. “My parents instilled in me the confidence to speak up and not be rattled by others’ opinions. I don’t get my feelings hurt—I try to respond as effectively as I can through my writing.”
She noted that sometimes a dissenting opinion emerges not just from opposition, but from a unique lens she brings to the Court’s evolving dialogue.
“Sometimes I just see something differently and feel compelled to weigh in,” Jackson said.
As the Court continues to rule on sweeping presidential powers, immigration, and democratic norms, Jackson’s voice has become a clear and unwavering counterpoint—one that appears increasingly determined to ring alarm bells, regardless of political pressure.
