News

3 Questions for Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson

Hearings are being held by the Senate Judiciary Committee this week regarding the nomination of Ketanji brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jackson is an eminent federal judge and has a solid legal record. Jackson’s views on crucial constitutional questions are still unclear, or they deserve more attention. These are the three questions that I would like her to address before this committee:

* Pierce v. Society of Sisters(1925) The Supreme Court overturned Oregon’s Compulsory Education Act. This law prohibited parents from sending children to private schools. The Court stated that “the child is more than a mere creation of the state.” It is obvious to us that we believe the [Oregon law]Unreasonably restricts the freedom of guardians and parents to control the education and upbringing of their children [their] children.”

PierceThe Court offers judicial protection for an unnumerated constitutional right. A Constitution doesn’t explicitly list the parental right to guide their children’s education, like the right for speech freedom or right to bear arms.

Are you adamant that the Constitution does not protect unnumerated rights If you don’t agree with the Constitution protecting unenumerated rights, then what does the 9th Amendment mean when it states, “The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed as denying or disparaging others retained by people.”

* Gonzales v. Raich2005: The Supreme Court upholds the power of the federal government in California to prosecute medical cannabis users. This is despite the fact that the marijuana at issue was grown within the boundaries of one state.

You agree with the Interstate Commerce Clause giving Congress power to ban this kind of local activity

*Title 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 authorizes federal civil lawsuits against government officials for constitutional rights violations. Yet in Harlow v. FitzgeraldThe Supreme Court protected state officials against such suits in 1982, if their conduct “doesn’t violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.” This qualification was not made by Congress and was rather formulated by the Court. Qualified immunity is a doctrine that prevents police officers facing civil rights lawsuits in instances of clear police misconduct.

Are you adamant that qualified immunity conforms with the first statute enacted in Congress? Or do you agree with Judge Don Willett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, who has said that “the real-world functioning of modern immunity practice—essentially ‘heads government wins, tails plaintiffs lose’—leaves many victims violated but not vindicated”?