{"id":123478,"date":"2025-06-20T13:02:31","date_gmt":"2025-06-20T21:02:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/20\/neil-gorsuch-starts-some-supreme-court-drama-ketanji-brown-jackson-ends-it\/"},"modified":"2025-06-20T13:02:31","modified_gmt":"2025-06-20T21:02:31","slug":"neil-gorsuch-starts-some-supreme-court-drama-ketanji-brown-jackson-ends-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/20\/neil-gorsuch-starts-some-supreme-court-drama-ketanji-brown-jackson-ends-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Neil Gorsuch Starts Some Supreme Court Drama. Ketanji Brown Jackson Ends It."},"content":{"rendered":"

Today, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida<\/em>. The majority decision, penned by Neil Gorsuch, limited the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act, saying an ex-firefighter did not have the right to sue her former employer over benefits. But more than just further eroding discrimination law in this country, the decision also gave us a peek into the petty back-and-forth of the High Court.<\/p>\n

We know that SCOTUS is not immune<\/a> to partisan differences causing personal rifts between co-workers. And that seems to be what\u2019s going on in the Stanley<\/em> case. Because Gorsuch takes the time to call out Ketanji Brown Jackson\u2019s dissent, strongly implying Jackson seeks a judicial methodology that\u2019s sufficiently \u201cpliable to secure the result they seek.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Failing all else, Ms. Stanley and the dissent ask us to look beyond text and precedent. Brief for Petitioner 29, 47; post, at 18 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). Finding \u201cpure textualism\u201d insufficiently pliable to secure the result they seek, they invoke the statute\u2019s \u201cprimary purpose\u201d and \u201clegislative history.\u201d Post, at 1, 15, 22. As they see it, the ADA\u2019s goal of eradicating disability-based discrimination would be best served by a decision extending Title I\u2019s protections beyond those who hold or seek a job to retirees.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

LOL. Every accusation is an admission<\/a>. But I don\u2019t need to get too in the weeds defending KBJ, she\u2019s got that pretty well covered. It\u2019s a glorious footnote that\u2019s deserving of the hype<\/a> it\u2019s getting. Here it is in its entirety:<\/p>\n

\n

The majority\u2019s contention that I reject \u201c\u2018pure textualism\u2019 [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,\u201d ante, at 10, stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And, indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress\u2019s aims does exactly that\u2014 and no more. By contrast, pure textualism\u2019s refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences. By \u201cfinding\u201d answers in ambiguous text, and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as \u201ctextual\u201d inevitabilities. So, really, far from being \u201cinsufficiently pliable,\u201d I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable\u2014that\u2019s its primary problem\u2014and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority\u2019s desired outcome.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Shorter footnote 12: fuck you and your textualism. She literally says everything liberals have thought about textualism for generations, but says it much more forcefully and elegantly. And she\u2019s right too \u2014 for crying out loud: \u201ctextualism\u201d was used to determine sanitation does not refer to keeping things clean<\/a> because that would not align with conservative policy goals. KBJ is exactly spot on here.<\/p>\n

Some have complained explicitly Sonia Sotomayor carved footnote 12 out of her signing on to Jackson\u2019s opinion. And maybe it is Sotomayor trying to keep the peace with her right-wing colleagues. But this is the same justice that issued a dissent \u201cin sadness\u201d<\/a> this week, so I see a little more nuance here. It was Jackson that Gorsuch picked a fight with, and perhaps not joining in footnote 12 was just Sotomayor\u2019s way of letting Jackson have the stage to say exactly what she want to say.<\/p>\n

And this footnote is a real *moment* for Justice Jackson \u2014 one Jackson (and Jackson alone) deserves all the accolades for. <\/p>\n

Earlier:<\/strong> The Supreme Court Justices Have As Much Contempt For Each Other As The Rest Of America Has For Them<\/a><\/p>\n

23-997_6579<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her<\/a> with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Neil Gorsuch Starts Some Supreme Court Drama. Ketanji Brown Jackson Ends It.<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Photo by Anna Moneymaker\/Getty Images)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Today, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida<\/em>. The majority decision, penned by Neil Gorsuch, limited the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act, saying an ex-firefighter did not have the right to sue her former employer over benefits. But more than just further eroding discrimination law in this country, the decision also gave us a peek into the petty back-and-forth of the High Court.<\/p>\n

We know that SCOTUS is not immune<\/a> to partisan differences causing personal rifts between co-workers. And that seems to be what\u2019s going on in the Stanley<\/em> case. Because Gorsuch takes the time to call out Ketanji Brown Jackson\u2019s dissent, strongly implying Jackson seeks a judicial methodology that\u2019s sufficiently \u201cpliable to secure the result they seek.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Failing all else, Ms. Stanley and the dissent ask us to look beyond text and precedent. Brief for Petitioner 29, 47; post, at 18 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). Finding \u201cpure textualism\u201d insufficiently pliable to secure the result they seek, they invoke the statute\u2019s \u201cprimary purpose\u201d and \u201clegislative history.\u201d Post, at 1, 15, 22. As they see it, the ADA\u2019s goal of eradicating disability-based discrimination would be best served by a decision extending Title I\u2019s protections beyond those who hold or seek a job to retirees.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

LOL. Every accusation is an admission<\/a>. But I don\u2019t need to get too in the weeds defending KBJ, she\u2019s got that pretty well covered. It\u2019s a glorious footnote that\u2019s deserving of the hype<\/a> it\u2019s getting. Here it is in its entirety:<\/p>\n

\n

The majority\u2019s contention that I reject \u201c\u2018pure textualism\u2019 [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,\u201d ante, at 10, stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And, indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress\u2019s aims does exactly that\u2014 and no more. By contrast, pure textualism\u2019s refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences. By \u201cfinding\u201d answers in ambiguous text, and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as \u201ctextual\u201d inevitabilities. So, really, far from being \u201cinsufficiently pliable,\u201d I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable\u2014that\u2019s its primary problem\u2014and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority\u2019s desired outcome.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Shorter footnote 12: fuck you and your textualism. She literally says everything liberals have thought about textualism for generations, but says it much more forcefully and elegantly. And she\u2019s right too \u2014 for crying out loud: \u201ctextualism\u201d was used to determine sanitation does not refer to keeping things clean<\/a> because that would not align with conservative policy goals. KBJ is exactly spot on here.<\/p>\n

Some have complained explicitly Sonia Sotomayor carved footnote 12 out of her signing on to Jackson\u2019s opinion. And maybe it is Sotomayor trying to keep the peace with her right-wing colleagues. But this is the same justice that issued a dissent \u201cin sadness\u201d<\/a> this week, so I see a little more nuance here. It was Jackson that Gorsuch picked a fight with, and perhaps not joining in footnote 12 was just Sotomayor\u2019s way of letting Jackson have the stage to say exactly what she want to say.<\/p>\n

And this footnote is a real *moment* for Justice Jackson \u2014 one Jackson (and Jackson alone) deserves all the accolades for. <\/p>\n

Earlier:<\/strong> The Supreme Court Justices Have As Much Contempt For Each Other As The Rest Of America Has For Them<\/a><\/p>\n

23-997_6579<\/a>Download<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her<\/a> with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Mastodon @[email\u00a0protected].<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida. The majority decision, penned by Neil Gorsuch, limited the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act, saying an ex-firefighter did not have the right to sue her former employer over benefits. But more than just further eroding discrimination law in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":123442,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-AOKE11.jpeg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123478","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123478\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/123442"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}