Jackson draws fire for ADA reference in voting case | Fox News
By: Breanne Deppisch (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Justice Jackson asserts past discrimination disables minority voters
Justice Jackson compares racial vote barriers to disability access in Louisiana v. Callais, during oral arguments on the legality of certain Voting Rights Act provisions. (Credit: United States Supreme Court)
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sparked debate Wednesday after she invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during oral arguments to illustrate how the government can remedy discrimination — an exchange that quickly took off on social media, where some critics accused her of comparing Black voters to disabled persons.
The back-and-forth took place during nearly three hours of oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, which centers on states' obligation to consider race when drawing congressional maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Jackson's remarks were a follow-up to questions posed by Justice Elena Kagan, who had also pressed counsel for Louisiana on what remedies the government must provide in cases of discrimination under the 14th and 15th Amendments, and if they must take into account issues of intent.
"Going back to this discriminatory intent point — and the fact that remedial action, absent discriminatory intent, is really not a new idea in civil rights laws. And my paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA," Jackson said.
SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
"Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities. And so it was discriminatory, in effect, because these folks were not able to access these buildings — and [it] didn't matter whether the person who built the building, or the person who owned the building, intended for them to be exclusionary. That's irrelevant," she continued.
"Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I don't understand why that's not what's happening here."
Jackson went on to note that the idea of Section 2 is that the government "is responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantaged minorities," and to "make it so they now have equal access to the voting system, right? They're disabled," she said, drilling down on the hypothetical.
Voting rights activists protest outside the Supreme Court as the court prepares to hear arguments in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map in Washington on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025.(Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
The lawyer arguing for Louisiana interjected to note, "The difference is that the remedy under the ADA and other anti-discrimination laws are not stereotyping."
"It's not race-based," Jackson quickly agreed of the ADA and other discrimination laws. "I take your point."
"But what you're saying, then, that if the problem of no access is about race, 'it's just too bad,' because you can't have a remedy that relates to race?"
"Absolutely not, Your Honor," counsel responded.
Activists and participants gather in front of the Supreme Court during the re-argument of Louisiana v. Callais on Oct. 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C.(Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Legal Defense Fund)
Despite the heavy backlash that erupted on social media and suggestions that she was describing Black people or other minorities as "disabled," Jackson's remarks were not unique — nor were they unique in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
As she noted during the same exchange, the "disabled" terminology was used by the Supreme Court in a 2021 case, Allen v. Milligan, which also dealt with race-based redistricting issues in the state of Alabama and issues of discriminatory intent.
In Milligan, Jackson said, the Supreme Court "used the word disabled — we said, that's a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open."
"So I don't understand why it matters whether the state intended to do that. What Congress is saying is, if it is happening, which Section 2 gives us the tools to determine, you've got to fix it."
The court's conservative majority seemed poised to significantly weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, though to what extent it will do so remains to be seen.
Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI and other national news. She previously covered national politics at the Washington Examiner and The Washington Post, with additional bylines in Politico Magazine, the Colorado Gazette and others. You can send tips to Breanne at Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com, or follow her on X at @breanne_dep.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. No use of MAGA and trump is not the subject.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
It's amazing that she has reached the pinnacle of her profession and is still a racist who thinks here own people are incapable of a simple act like voting.
You completely misunderstand the issue. What a surprise !
She is saying being a person of color equals being disabled, that is racist and no amount of bullshit spin can correct it.
That is not the issue, that is a partisan criticism of her.
Do you actually know what the issue is ?
This ranks right up there with kamala saying blacks don't know how to make copies or find a kinkos
That's a cop out, and a cowards excuse. It has nothing to do with being partisan. With all the false accusations from the left of people being racist, you are ignoring an ACTUAL RACIST to the point you are defending it.
another one who doesnt know the issue . Are you having a meeting ?
So you don't have anything of any value to add...again.
Why would that be amazing? She was appointed by a racist on the basis of her race.
In essence....a DEI selection.
She is very much a racist and totally unfit to be a Judge of any kind, never mind the highest Court in the land. Imagine making an argument that black people are invalids who need special privileges.
The democrats and the left have been doing it for decades. I'm sure you remember "Affirmative Action" and DEI Programs.
Affirmative action was another questionable venture by liberals who were afraid that blacks would be the last to be hired or admitted. It is very similar to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in that it would violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, but it would be temporary. (The temporary was implied though current democrats seem to want it to go on forever.)
DEI was the amplification of affirmative action by Barack Obama. It was he who pushed it as the unwritten law. Biden (or more likely Obama's surrogates) later institutionalized DEI into government, academia and throughout the business community.
Right now, both policies are casualties of the MAGA counter revolution.
She may end up barring access to the Supreme Court yelling, “racial preferences now, racial preferences tomorrow, racial preferences forever”
Just stop discriminating on the basis of race and end these embarrassing excuse making sessions