🚨 Supreme Court in CHAOS after BOMBSHELL RULING

Ajouté : 2026-05-06

[00:00:00]We got a feud that has broken out into the public between Justice Alto and the MAGA right-wing of the Supreme Court and Katanji Brown Jackson. They're not pulling any punches on either side. Uh Alto takes umbrage and offense at things Katanji Brown Jackson says. Katanji Brown Jackson says this is an unbridled assertion of power by the United States Supreme Court. What am I talking about?

[00:00:24]Well, the top line is, oh, Supreme Court makes a ruling about when when its order, his opinion from April 29th about voting rights in the Cala decision in Louisiana, when it's going to take effect, now or 32 days from now, which is what the Supreme Court rule says.

[00:00:41]That's the topline. But there is a a allout not so civil war that's broken out between Katanji Brown Jackson and Sam Alto with Alto along with Gorsuch and Thomas going after Katanji Brown Jackson and she's not having it. nor should she because the Supreme Court, in my view, just put their big fat thumbs on the scale of justice in favor of MAGA and Republicans. Once again, sticking their noses in the middle of a highly political battle that's still going on at the lower court level about whether Louisianans and their vote will be thrown in the trash can or not. And normally the United States Supreme Court, which Katanji Brown Jackson reminded Alo and the majority, normally they they when they want to and it's a Republican issue, they stay out of it.

[00:01:29]They say, "Oh no, we're too close to the election. We have a doctrine called the Purcell Doctrine." In fact, five months ago, they used the Purcell Doctrine to say, "Oh, no. Can't redo maps now where we're getting involved with political primaries and the court should stay out of it." And now the court is issuing an order to send down its opinion issued in the Cala versus Louisiana case immediately down so it can be applied right now and not in 32 days as the Supreme Court rule provides in order to tip the scales in favor of Louisiana and against the American Civil Liberties Union and its plaintiff. That's what's going on. You can say whatever nicities you want. You can make it personal, which Alto makes it. Aha, you've ridiculed me. Uh, I don't know if you read it a hundred or 200 years ago, you think he's about to call her out for a duel somewhere in Hoboken. I was like, "Oh, I was waiting for him to pull out a a glove." Uh, and uh, my honor, ma'am.

[00:02:28]It was just totally ridiculous. But Katanji Brown Jackson, who's got my vote to be uh, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court one day when a Democrat takes over, something Alto will never live to see for himself. Um, she's not having it. You know, a couple of weeks ago at Yale University, she gave a stinging rebuke and retort against her right-wingers like Alto and their use of the emergency docket and what it's doing to ruin the reputation of the Supreme Court. And she was oh so right. You're on Legal AF. Early voting has already begun here on Legal AF. Hit the subscribe button as we try to get to 1.2 million subscribers on our top ranked channel. All right, let's get to the uh the um opinion of Alto. Again, mainstream media sort of reporting it blandly, plain vanilla. Oh, the decision about the 32-day rule. It's come out.

[00:03:22]No, that's not the not the issue. The issue is the nasty things Alto says about Katanji Brown Jackson, who by the way gets the last word. See, the way these opinions are written, you know, it's not a shock. She Ali Kati Brown Jackson doesn't read what the majority opinion is and you know when we all get it. She saw it in draft and she gets to respond and she got the final word.

[00:03:45]Here's what uh procedurally happened that I'll I'll give you the part that Alto decided to go after one of his colleagues. The issue is about a rule of the Supreme Court rule 45.3 that says that when an opinion is issued like we covered the April 29th decision the opinion of the court 6 to3 in Calala I want to talk to you about Bert Cala in a minute an election denier but he was the plaintiff in the case that that uh declared the map at the time adding a new black district in Louisiana to be unconstitutional in violation of the 15th amendment and the voting rights act as interpreted by Alto.

[00:04:24]Every every opinion has a 32day fuse uh under the rule before it gets sent down to the lower court by the clerk. It gives time for parties to ask for reconsideration because you're at the Supreme Court. There's nowhere else to go or to do some other things you may be doing. Okay, here Louisiana ran in and said, "We want to redo the maps right now even though we're already voting and people have already sent back their ballots. So, we need the opinion right now. Plus, they're in litigation with the American Civil Liberties Union and others about balloting to, you know, you got one side trying to save votes and the other side, the Republicans, trying to kill them. That's what this is about.

[00:05:06]Existential. So, the 32-day rule goes out the window because the majority 6 to3 rules it should sent down right now.

[00:05:14]Meaning, we're going to enter the political frey right now. Now, there's two doctrines that are usually implicated. There's the political question doctrine and there's the PCEL doctrine. The political question doctrine this which the Supreme Court has used uh frequently is uh we can't dirty our hands. This is a political question. We're a court of law or equity and therefore we're going to stay out of it. It's not justable meaning we can't even litigate it. Lock the door to this particular issue. And the court did it uh you know in cases including ones cited by Justice Jackson um in um in uh related to elections and voting. That's the political question doctrine. We don't even want to hear from you folks because we don't want to get into politics. The second one is is the PCEL doctrine, a madeup doctrine which says if we get too close to an election, court should stay out of it because it becomes political. It's similar. It's the second side of the same coin about politics. But all went out the window and Katanji Brown Jackson in her descent said, "Our principles bent and broke under the weight of just pure power, a power grab by this court, which is illegitimate." Well, Alito didn't like that. So, he said the following in his descent, joined by Justice Thomas and Gorsuch. The disscent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. So, of course, now he's got to answer them. Um he says the descent does not uh 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 descent assert that it's not feasible for the elections to be held under such map. No, she said which you ignore in her in her two-page descent that there is active litigation going on right now and we're getting sucked into a political question that we generally based on principle stay out of. He then says one of the attacks by her is baseless and insulting. The the baseless and insulting one is the insinuation or insistence on um that uh uh we should apply the 32-day rule in order to appear nonpartisan. But she's he's she's he's saying it appears partisan if we apply the 32-day rule. He never addresses her argument that only twice in 25 years has the court ever broken the 32-day rule. and only here in a political matter. The descent goes on to claim Molo says that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power.

[00:07:49]Page two. Well, that's the pitch. There was a lot of wind up before that. Uh, what principle has the court violated?

[00:07:56]The principle that 40 that rule 45's 32-day default period should never be shortened. No, that's not the principle.

[00:08:04]If you read if you read her descent, Alto, the principle is political purscell doctrine and um political question doctrine. Those are the principles that seem to have flown out the window. Um he continues to attack her on page uh three of his order. The descent accuses the court of unshackling itself from constraints. It is the descent's rhetoric that lacks restraint.

[00:08:33]I will meet you at dawn in Hoboken pistols. I'm like, what is going on? So, here's Justice Jackson.

[00:08:42]And what she says in her descent.

[00:08:46]She says in a very well-reasoned descent, the following.

[00:08:52]Get it right for you. Don't want to leave it out for you. Here's the descent.

[00:08:58]She goes through the Louisiana case, how we got here, and the rest. So now new litigation has followed. She says a candidate and Louisiana voters who have already submitted their ballots because the voting has already started. That's her point. So politics and political question have already started. uh have filed suits against the governor and the secretary of state of Louisiana, asserting that whatever might happen in the future this election is already underway and must continue pursuant to the current maps. Meanwhile, to facilitate Louisiana's midstream redistricting rush, Appoles now ask us to expedite release of the certified judgment.

[00:09:37]These postcale developments, meaning since the 29th of April, have a strong political undercurrent, right? and and we shouldn't be seen as proxies for the for the for favored political parties. As always, the court has a choice. By my count, we've granted an application over an objection only twice in 25 years to avoid the appearance of partiality.

[00:09:59]We should stay on the sidelines.

[00:10:02]But today, the court chooses the opposite. And she says on page three of her descent, not content to have decided the law and now takes steps to influence its implementation and rushes into this election dispute.

[00:10:15]Um talks about partisan game gamesmanship about the risk of assuming political responsibility in the process in that will produce ill will and distrust. this so-called there is the so-called Purcell principle that she says we've invoked only five months ago when a federal district court uh was chastised for improperly inserting itself into an active primary campaign. She's like that's exactly what we're doing now in Louisiana. The court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, I respectfully descent. She then takes them on because she gets the last word in her footnote. She says, "Contrary to Justice Alo's charges, footnote three, my conclusion here does not require that the elections be held under a map that's unconstitutional, but he is correct to observe that I am neither claiming that it is now late too late for the state legislature to adopt a new map. Nor am I asserting that it's not feasible for elections to be held under a map.

[00:11:22]Indeed, my preference is for the court to to stay out of it and to stick with our default procedures. It is the majority that opts to do otherwise, thereby seeming to endorse Louisiana's efforts to change its map before the pending lawsuits have a chance to play out. Alto, that's the principle she's saying. You've abandoned and allowed power, unbridled raw power to dominate the decision-making.

[00:11:47]Let me show you Katanji Brown Jackson basically anticipating this type of power grab by the court and its impact on the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of the public when she gave this lecture at Yale Law School. Play the clip >> on the institution in terms of its relationships with the lower courts and the American people. They are substantial.

[00:12:11]To start, having a docket that allows the court to routinely interfere with lower court cases while they are in progress, disrespects the lower court's authority, and withholds the difference appellet courts have traditionally provided regarding factbound matters that are within a trial court's expertise.

[00:12:33]In addition, the court is withholding its own work product by issuing summary orders. further undermining the public's confidence in our judicial colleagues. A oneline stay grant that overturns a lower court's contrary conclusion suggests that the judgment call was so easy that no deliberation or explanation is required.

[00:12:59]And that suggestion casts espersions on the tedious work that our colleagues have done to carefully parse the evidence, weigh the various factors, and exercise their considerable equitable discretion.

[00:13:15]Summary orders on the emergency docket are also costly in terms of the court's own relationship with the public. The Supreme Court's power comes from its reasoning. So, it really does need to inform the public as to why it has decided to chart a particular course.

[00:13:34]Issuing important decisions in such a cursory manner disrespects not only the people whose lives are upended by its rulings, but also the public that has given it trust and authority.

[00:13:50]And then there is the fact that significant realworld harms can follow Supreme Court rulings. And when our orders don't acknowledge that reality, they seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.

[00:14:05]Similarly, given the realworld facts that a stay request asks the court to consider, the court's stay decisions can at times come across utterly irrational.

[00:14:21]We cannot expect the public to have faith in our judicial system if without clear explanation, we consistently green light harmful acts that do real damage to litigating plaintiffs without a court decision fully and fairly determining the lawfulness of that challenged conduct on the merits.

[00:14:43]A litigant can do all that our justice system requires. Now you see why she's my choice to be the future uh United States Supreme Court Chief Justice.

[00:14:53]That's what I think will happen when the Democrats get control of the White House and of the Senate. You're going to see the elevation, I think, of Kati Brown Jackson. Some people are pushing for Soayor, but frankly, she's in her 70s.

[00:15:06]And I think we want somebody who's vital and vibrant in their in their late 40s and actually late 40s uh to take over for the next 20 to 30 years, help reshape the court, and then replace as people die off, get the replacement.

[00:15:20]See, that's what's at stake right now.

[00:15:22]And Alo knows it and sees her as a rival. uh and uh we see her as somebody who's protecting democracy every hour and every day along with Justice Kagan and Justice Soayor and we applaud them for it. So early voting has started here. Hit the free subscribe button on Legal AF. An amazing day of programming.

[00:15:41]Legal AF uh the midweek edition on Midas Touch Network will be tonight and then we've got 12 videos for you right here at the intersection of law and politics.

[00:15:50]Come over to Substack where we're running a sale. 40% off on Substack paid membership. Help us get to 10,000 paid members. That's a that's a milestone very few Substacks make. With your help, we'll get there over the weekend. So, until my next report, I'm Michael Pop.

[00:16:08]Can't get your fill of legal AF? Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.