DEI Appointee Justice Jackson’s remarks on minority voters spark heavy backlash: ‘They’re disabled’
*
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stirred discussion Wednesday after referencing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during oral arguments to illustrate how the government can address discrimination. The comment quickly went viral on social media, where some critics misinterpreted her example as comparing Black voters to people with disabilities.
The exchange occurred during nearly three hours of oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a case focused on states’ obligations to consider race when drawing congressional maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Jackson’s remarks followed questions from Justice Elena Kagan, who asked Louisiana’s attorneys about the remedies the government must provide in discrimination cases under the 14th and 15th Amendments, and whether intent matters in determining those remedies.
“Going back to this discriminatory intent point — and the fact that remedial action, absent discriminatory intent, is really not a new idea in civil rights law — my paradigmatic example is something like the ADA,” Jackson said.
“Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in a world that was generally inaccessible to people with disabilities. It was discriminatory in effect, even if the person who built or owned the building did not intend to exclude anyone. Congress said facilities must be made equally accessible to people with disabilities, when readily possible. I don’t understand why that principle wouldn’t apply here,” she added.
Jackson emphasized that Section 2 is meant to address “current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantaged minorities” to ensure equal access to voting. “They now have equal access to the voting system,” she said, using a hypothetical to illustrate the point.
Louisiana’s attorney objected, noting that remedies under the ADA and other civil rights laws are not based on stereotyping. Jackson agreed, clarifying, “I take your point. But what you’re saying is, if the problem of no access is about race, ‘it’s just too bad,’ because you can’t have a remedy that relates to race?”
The lawyer responded, “Absolutely not, Your Honor.”
Despite social media backlash, Jackson’s remarks were consistent with prior Supreme Court language. She pointed to the 2021 case Allen v. Milligan, which also addressed race-based redistricting and discriminatory intent. In that case, the Court described processes that prevent equal access as “disabled,” a term Jackson said was intended to describe structural barriers rather than individuals.
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court appears likely to weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, though the exact scope of that decision remains uncertain.
About Post Author
