Ketanji Brown Jackson Joins Conservative Justices in Upending Hundreds of January 6 Cases
The Supreme Court on Friday narrowed the interpretation of a federal criminal law under which many January 6 rioters have been charged, throwing hundreds of such cases into at least partial uncertainty. It was yet another 6–3
decision.
But despite the immensely politically-charged nature of the case, it was also yet another time that the votes did not come down along exclusively ideological lines. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the latter of whom wrote a concurring opinion urging the government to keep criminal laws constrained to their actual text. (Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.)
~Snip~
That Justice Jackson sided with Fischer shouldn't, in theory, come as a surprise. She is the only former public defender on the current Court; in the judiciary broadly, you are far more likely to find former prosecutors on the bench. So it stands to reason that she understands first-hand the downsides of government getting creative with criminal statutes, as prosecutors sometimes do.
But it is probably surprising to many onlookers, for at least a couple of reasons. For one, the common narrative, it seems, is that this Supreme Court is more radical, extreme, and polarized than ever before. As I wrote earlier this week, that's not at all reflected in the data: The early part of this term was defined by a historic number of unanimous decisions, and today's 6–3 decision being composed of a heterogeneous group is
actually quite common. It just rarely drives the news.
Commentary:
This decision upends many of the cases against those convicted for Jan 6th protesting.
It also affects the actions and leegation of Smith against Trump.
It appears that things are continuing fall apart around the Democrats in general like a house of cards.
