Justice Alito Torches Justice Jackson’s Dissent in Louisiana Case

The court idiot gets a long overdue slapdown.

Justice Alito fires back at Justice Jackson, calling her solo dissent "baseless and insulting" and "utterly irresponsible" after she accused the majority of abandoning principle for power. pic.twitter.com/cfSGyWcuC7

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) May 4, 2026

They all realize KBJ’s completely incompetent. Even the liberals. The worst president in any of our lives, Joe Biden, also gave us the worst Supreme Court justice, KBJ, in any of our lives. Thanks, Joe. https://t.co/IMlcSYO63f

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 5, 2026

Supreme Court Rules Louisiana’s House Map an ‘Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander,’ “SNAKED” Across the The State

Alito—in his concurring opinion noted above—is expressing a well-grounded fatigue with Ketanji Brown Jackson.

From Alito: The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional. The dissent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution. Nor does the dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and Insulting…. The dissent accuses the Court of “unshackl[ing]” itself from “constraints.” Post, at 4. It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint (Supreme Court).

Eric Daugherty: Justices Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas just PUMMELED Ketanji Jackson’s dissent, calling it “trivial at best, and the other is baseless and INSULTING”

Jackson basically attacked the majority, and argued Louisiana should be required to use an *unconstitutional* racially gerrymandered map in the 2026 midterms — directly against the majority ruling.

Alito didn’t take too kindly to that:

“The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power…that is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”

“What principle has the Court violated? The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”

“The dissent accuses the Court of ‘unshackl[ing] itself from ‘constraints…’ It is the DISSENT’S rhetoric that lacks restraint.”

“The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.”

“The dissent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution.”

“Nor does the dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action.”

“One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting.”

Gorsuch signed onto this as well.

I can absolutely see where Alito is coming from. There’s a certain enjoyment in debating people who are serious, who can argue in good faith, and who operate at a high level. That’s the kind of dynamic that let people like Scalia and Ginsburg be friends in private. For a long… https://t.co/Mz1T3QTo5c

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) May 5, 2026

==============================