Supreme Court justice suggests her colleagues have been taken in by 'moneyed interests'

20 June

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito (image from Creative Commons)

After the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 majority decision siding with the fossil fuel industry over environmental regulators, one of the dissenters lamented not just the decision itself, but the propensity of the nation's highest court to side with the rich and powerful.

Slate's Mark Joseph Stern wrote Friday that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – who was appointed by former President Joe Biden — used her dissent in the Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency decision to warn that the 7-2 ruling (with Justice Sonia Sotomayor being the only judge to join her dissent) may encourage corporations to continue chipping away at the regulatory system. She also called out the judiciary's pattern of showing favoritism toward "moneyed interests" over less powerful litigants like workers and criminal defendants.

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,” wrote Jackson on Friday. She added, “I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests.”

The associate justice went on to say that while “knowledgeable researchers" have considered such a viewpoint "unfounded," Americans' view of the Court as an extension of the wealthy and well-connected "seems pervasive.” She added that “even the mere appearance of favoritism” could “undermine confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.”

Justice Jackson went on to point out that her colleagues on the conservative-majority Supreme Court are much more likely to grant writs of certiorari (an agreement to hear a case) to powerful petitioners like corporations over "ordinary citizens," like victims of warrantless wiretapping and discrimination. She used the final portion of her dissent to remind her fellow justices of the phrase "Equal Justice Under Law," which is etched into the Supreme Court's facade:

"It is easy to deprecate the single phrase inscribed atop the entrance to our courthouse by conceptualizing it as a mere platitude. But 'Equal Justice Under Law' remains this court’s guiding light nearly a century after those words were first engraved there," she wrote. "Striving to embody that particular ideal is what distinguishes our work as judges from that of the well-heeled lawyers and lobbyists who walk into similarly ornate buildings every day to promote the interests of their clients."

"Those of us who are privileged to work inside the court must not lose sight of this institution’s unique mission and responsibility: to rule without fear or favor," she continued. "If the court privileges the interests of one class of litigants over others, even unintentionally, it can damage Americans’ faith in an impartial Judiciary and undermine the long-term credibility of its judgments."

Click here to read Stern's full article in Slate.

From Your Site Articles