Brandon’s nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has a history of her decisions being overturned by higher courts for judicial overreach.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated after Brandon vowed to only consider black women for the seat.
“She’s only actually published a single decision as an appellate judge, and that came out in the last 24 hours,” George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said Friday during an appearance on Fox News, adding that it was “a win for unions against a change by federal agencies.”
“She has some opinions as a district court judge,” Turley noted. “They’re quite lengthy opinions. She has been reversed, and the D.C. Circuit [Court of Appeals] reversed her for basically judicial overreach in a couple of cases.”
Fox reports, “one 2019 case involved an order that expanded the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) definition on which noncitizens could be deported. Another overturned case involved a trio of orders on federal employees’ collective bargaining power.”
“Jackson’s DHS ruling was overturned in a 2-1 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court, which said reviewing the DHS policy did not fall under the Administrative Procedure Act,” the report explains. “The judge’s ruling on the three collective bargaining orders was overturned unanimously by the D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled that Jackson did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.”
Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino previously told Fox News Digital that her history should “trouble anyone concerned about the rule of law.”
“Judge Jackson’s record of reversals by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit is troubling for anyone concerned about the rule of law,” Severino said. “For example, in Make the Road New York v. Wolf, a D.C. Circuit panel composed of a majority of Democratic nominees concluded that Jackson had set aside a Trump administration rule where there was no legal basis to do so.
“Cases like these suggest that Jackson might be willing in politically charged cases to ignore the law to deliver a particular policy outcome, and that’s not what we want to see from a Supreme Court justice.”