Ketanji Brown Jackson

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States

Tenure

2022 - Present

Years in position

3

Predecessor:Stephen Breyer (Nonpartisan)

Prior offices:

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Years in office: 2021 - 2022

Predecessor:Merrick Garland (Nonpartisan)

Successor:Florence Pan (Nonpartisan)

---

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Years in office: 2013 - 2021

Predecessor:Henry Kennedy (Nonpartisan)

Successor:Florence Pan (Nonpartisan)

Education

High school

Miami Palmetto High School, 1988

Bachelor's

Harvard University, 1992

Law

Harvard Law School, 1996

Personal

Birthplace

District of Columbia

Ketanji Brown Jackson is an associate justice of theU.S. Supreme Court. PresidentJoe Biden (D) nominated her to the Supreme Court on February 28, 2022, and she was confirmed to the Court by theU.S. Senate by a vote of 53-47 on April 7, 2022.^[1][2][3] Jackson received her judicial commission on April 8, 2022, and was sworn in as an associate justice of the court on June 30, 2022. Jackson is the first Black woman confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the first Black woman to serve as a Supreme Court justice.^[4] Jackson was one of 235Article III judges nominated by PresidentJoe Biden (D) and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.Click here for more information on Jackson's U.S. Supreme Court nomination.

TheSupreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. To learn more about the court,click here.

Prior to joining the Court, Jackson was a judge on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She was nominated to the D.C. Circuit by PresidentJoe Biden (D) on April 19, 2021. The U.S. Senate confirmed Jackson to the court by a vote of 53-44 on June 14, 2021, and Jackson served on the Court from 2021-2022.^[5][6][7]

Prior to her service on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jackson was a judge on theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia. She was nominated to the court by PresidentBarack Obama (D) on January 4, 2013. The U.S. Senate confirmed Jackson to the court by voice vote on March 23, 2013. She served on the District Court from 2013-2021.^[4][8][9]

In her response to written questions from SenatorAmy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) during her SCOTUS nomination proceedings, Jackson described her jurisprudence, "My judicial philosophy is to approach all cases with professional integrity, meaning strict adherence to the rule of law, keeping an open mind, and deciding each issue in a transparent, straightforward manner, without bias or any preconceived notion of how the matter is going to turn out."^[10]

In the2022-2023 and2023-2024 terms, Jackson agreed most with JusticesSonia Sotomayor andElena Kagan and disagreed most with JusticeClarence Thomas.^[11][12]Click here to read more about Jackson's Supreme Court stats.

While on the U.S. Supreme Court, Jackson'snotable opinions include:

• a 5-4 ruling inHewitt v. United States (2025), holding that all first-time offenders including those who were sentenced before the First Step Act then needed to be resentenced after the Act, are subject to its revised penalties.
• a 5-4 ruling inTexas v. New Mexico and Colorado (2024), denying the states' proposed consent decree regarding the Rio Grande Compact as being dispositive of the U.S. government's claims—backed by unique federal interests and SCOTUS precedent—without its consent.
• First majority opinion inDelaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (2023), concerningescheatment
• First Court opinion in capital caseChinn v. Shoop (2022), dissenting from the majority's denial ofcertiorari.

Judicial nominations and appointments

Supreme Court of the United States (2022-present)

See also:Federal judges nominated by Joe Biden

On February 28, 2022, PresidentJoe Biden (D) nominated Jackson as a justice on theSupreme Court of the United States. She was confirmed by a 53-47 vote of the U.S. Senate on April 7, 2022, and received her judicial commission on April 8, 2022.^[13][2][3]

To read more about Jackson's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court,click here.

To read more about the federal nominations process,click here.

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Ketanji Brown Jackson
Court:Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 38 days after nomination.
ANominated: February 28, 2022
AABA Rating:Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:Questionnaire
AHearing: March 21-24, 2022
QFRs:(Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: April 4, 2022[14]
AConfirmed: April 7, 2022
AVote: 53-47

Confirmation vote

The U.S. Senate confirmed Jackson by a vote of 53-47 on April 7, 2022.^[2] To see a full breakdown of the vote on the official U.S. Senate website,click here.

Jackson confirmation vote (April 7, 2022)
Party	Yea	Nay	No vote
Democratic	48	0	0
Republican	3	47	0
Independent	2	0	0
Total	53	47	0

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings

See also:Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearings

TheSenate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Jackson's nomination over a four-day period from March 21 to March 24, 2022. On April 4, 2022, the committee cast an 11-11 tie vote along political party lines to report Jackson to the fullUnited States Senate for a confirmation vote. As a result, Jackson was not reported favorably to the Senate. On a 53-47 vote that same day, the Senate discharged her nomination from the committee.^[15][16] For more information on Jackson's confirmation hearings,click here.

Below is a brief overview of the hearings:

• Day four (3/24/2022): Witnesses supporting and opposing Jackson's confirmation spoke during the final day of hearings. Witnesses included the American Bar Association, five witnesses brought by Democrats, and five witnesses brought by Republicans.
• Day three (3/23/2022): Members of the judiciary committee questioned the judge, with each senator allotted 20 minutes. Topics in the questioning included Jackson's approach to sentencing, Jackson's recusal fromStudents for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard (2023), and the Supreme Court's use of emergency orders. Senate Judiciary Committee ChairmanDick Durbin (D-Ill.) announced the committee would vote on advancing Jackson's nomination on April 4.^[17]
• Day two (3/22/2022): Members of the judiciary committee questioned the judge, with each senator allotted 30 minutes. Recurring themes in the questioning included abortion, Jackson's experience representing Guantanamo Bay detainees, LGBTQIA+ issues, Jackson's sentencing record as a trial court judge, and Supreme Court expansion.
• Day one (3/21/2022): Senate Judiciary ChairmanDick Durbin (D-Ill.) and ranking memberChuck Grassley (R-Iowa) provided opening statements, followed by members of the committee. After the introductions, Jackson gave her opening statement.

Nomination

On February 28, 2022, PresidentJoe Biden (D) nominated Jackson to theSupreme Court of the United States.^[1] She was nominated to succeed JusticeStephen Breyer, who planned to assumesenior status at the start of the court's summer recess, which typically takes place in late June or early July. He officially assumed senior status on June 30, 2022.^[13][18]

During Breyer's January 27 retirement announcement, Biden said he would select a nominee who: "[W]ill be someone of extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."^[19][20] On February 12, theAssociated Press reported that Biden's shortlist included Jackson,J. Michelle Childs, andLeondra Kruger.^[21] Jackson was also mentioned by several media outlets includingCNN,Vox, andFox News as a possible nominee to fill Breyer's seat on the court.^{[22][23][24][25]}

Click here to read more about the vacancy and nomination process.

TheAmerican Bar Association rated Jackson unanimouslywell qualified.^[26] To read more about ABA ratings,click here.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2021-2022)

See also:Federal judges nominated by Joe Biden

On April 19, 2021, PresidentJoe Biden (D) nominated Jackson to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She was confirmed by a 53-44 vote of the U.S. Senate on June 14, 2021. Jackson received commission on June 17, 2021.^[5] To read more about the federal nominations process,click here.

Confirmation vote

TheU.S. Senate confirmed Jackson on June 14, 2021, on a vote of 53-44.^[27] To see a full breakdown of the vote on the official U.S. Senate website,click here.

Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation vote (June 14, 2021)
Party	Yea	Nay	No vote
Democratic	48	0	0
Republican	3	44	3
Independent	2	0	0
Total	53	44	3

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

The committee voted to advance Jackson's nomination to the full Senate on May 20, 2021.^[5]

Nomination

On March 30, 2021, PresidentJoe Biden (D) announced his intent to nominate Jackson to a seat on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The president officially nominated Jackson on April 19.<congdcc/>^[7]

Jackson was nominated to replace JudgeMerrick Garland, who retired from the court to becomeattorney general of the United States on March 10, 2021.^[7]

TheAmerican Bar Association rated Jacksonwell qualified.^[28] To read more about ABA ratings,click here.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia (2013-2021)

See also:Federal judges nominated by Barack Obama

On September 20, 2012, PresidentBarack Obama (D) nominated Jackson to theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia.^[29] The U.S. Senate confirmed Jackson by voice vote on March 23, 2013.^[8] She received her judicial commission on March 26.^[4] To read more about the federal nominations process,click here.

Confirmation vote

The U.S. Senate confirmed Jackson on March 23, 2013, by voice vote.^[8]

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

TheSenate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Jackson's nomination on December 12, 2012.^[29] The committee voted to advance her nomination to the full Senate on February 24, 2013.^[30]

Nomination

PresidentBarack Obama (D) nominated Jackson to theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia on September 20, 2012, to succeedHenry Kennedy.^[31] Jackson's nomination was returned to the president at thesine die adjournment of the112th United States Congress on January 3, 2013. President Obama resubmitted Jackson's nomination on January 4, 2013.^[29][8]

Jackson was ratedunanimously qualified for the nomination by theAmerican Bar Association.^[32] To read more about ABA ratings,click here.

Possible nomination to U.S. Supreme Court (2016)

See also:Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia

Before PresidentBarack Obama's (D) nomination ofMerrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, Jackson was mentioned as apossible nominee to replace former JusticeAntonin Scalia, who died on February 13, 2016.^[33]

Interview

On March 9, 2016,National Public Radio reported Jackson was interviewed byPresidentBarack Obama as a candidate to succeed deceased JusticeAntonin Scalia on theUnited States Supreme Court.^[34]

On March 16, 2016,PresidentBarack Obamanominated JudgeMerrick Garland of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to succeed JusticeAntonin Scalia on theSupreme Court of the United States.^[35][36]

Biography

Jackson was born in 1970 inWashington, D.C.^[37] She then moved with her family to Florida, where she graduated from Miami Palmetto High School in 1988.^[38] She earned a bachelor's degree in government,magna cum laude, and aJ.D.,cum laude, from Harvard University in 1992 and 1996, respectively.^[4][39][37]

At Harvard Law School, she worked as a reporter for a year atTime Magazine. During law school, Jackson served as a supervising editor for theHarvard Law Review from 1995 to 1996.^[40]

After law school, Jackson clerked for JudgePatti Saris on theUnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, JudgeBruce Marshall Selya on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and Supreme Court JusticeStephen Breyer. Jackson also worked for a year as an associate at a litigation firm and in private practice, before serving as an assistant special counsel to the United States Sentencing Commission. Former PresidentBarack Obama (D) appointed her as the commission's vice chair in 2012.^[40]

Professional career

• 2022-present: Justice,United States Supreme Court
• 2021-2022: Judge,United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• 2013-2021: Judge,United States District Court for the District of Columbia
• 2010-2014: Vice chair/Commissioner, United States Sentencing Commission
• 2007-2010: Of counsel (Private practice), Morrison & Foerster LLP,Washington, D.C.
• 2005-2007: Assistant federal public defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender
• 2003-2005: Assistant special counsel, United States Sentencing Commission
• 2002-2003: Associate, The Feinberg Group, LLP
• 2000-2002: Associate, Goodwin Procter LLP,Boston, Mass.
• 1999-2000: Law clerk, Hon.Stephen Breyer,Supreme Court of the United States
• 1998-1999: Associate, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin LLP, Washington, D.C.
• 1997-1998: Law clerk, Hon.Bruce Marshall Selya,U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit
• 1996-1997: Law clerk, Hon.Patti Saris,U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts^[37]

Awards and associations

Awards

• 2021: Constance Baker Motley Award, Empowering Women of Color, Columbia Law School
• 2020: Distinguished Visiting Jurist, Third Annual Judge James B. Parsons Legacy Award, Black Law Students Association, University of Chicago Law School
• 2019:
  • Stars of the Bar Award, Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia
  • David T. Lewis Distinguished Jurist-in-Residence, The University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law
• 2014-2015: Edward H. Levi Distinguished Visiting Jurist, The University of Chicago Law School^[37]

Associations

• American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section, Sentencing Task Force
• American Law Institute, Council
• Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court
• Harvard Alumni Association
• Harvard Black Alumni Society
• Harvard Club of Washington, D.C. (2002-2016)
• Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services
• Montrose Christian School Advisory School Board member (2010-2011)
• Supreme Court Fellows Commission
• Supreme Court Institute, Georgetown University, Moot Court Jurist (2003-2009)
• Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Amicus Committee co-chair (2006)^[37]

Approach to the law

Martin-Quinn score

Jackson's Martin-Quinn score following the 2023-2024 term was -1.98, making her the third-most liberal justice on the court at that time.Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2023-2024 term. These are preliminary scores provided by Kevin Quinn that may differ slightly from the final version of the scores that Martin and Quinn will make publicly available at a later date.

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Jackson has issued since joining the Supreme Court according to a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author ofEmpirical SCOTUS. Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part. Information for the 2023-2024 term is from theEmpirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review.

Justice agreement

An agreement rate indicates how often two justices were on the same side of the court's decision. A disagreement rate indicates how often two justices were on opposite sides of the court's decision.

In the 2023-2024 term, Jackson had the highest agreement rates withSonia Sotomayor andElena Kagan. She had the lowest agreement rate withClarence Thomas.^[11] In the 2022-2023 term, Jackson had the highest agreement rate withSonia Sotomayor. She had the lowest agreement rate withClarence Thomas.^[12] This does not include agreements in part.

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Jackson was in the majority in 73 percent of decisions. She was in the majority more often than two other justices.^[11] In the 2022-2023 term, Jackson was in the majority in 84 percent of decisions. She was in the majority more often than four other justices.^[12]

Since the 2022-2023 term, Jackson has been in the majority more than 80 percent of the time once. Across these terms, she has been in the majority on average 79 percent of the time.^[11][12]

Noteworthy Supreme Court cases

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, clickhere.

Since she joined the court through the 2023-2024 term, Jackson has authored one majority opinion in 5-4 decisions, and has authored two dissents in 8-1 decisions.

The table below details these cases by year.

U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions

• SCOTUS 2024 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Resentenced first-time offenders subject to First Step Act's revised penalties (2025)

  See also:Hewitt v. United States

  Justice Brown Jackson authored a 5-4 majority opinion inHewitt v. United States (2025), holding that all first-time offenders including those who were sentenced before the First Step Act then needed to be resentenced after the Act, are subject to its revised penalties. Jackson was joined in the majority by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts,Sonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan, andNeil Gorsuch.^[41]

  “	Under the interpretation of §403(b) we adopt today, all first-time §924(c) offenders who appear for sentencing after the First Step Act’s enactment date—including those whose previous §924(c) sentences have been vacated and who thus need to be resentenced—are subject to the Act’s revised penalties. The Fifth Circuit’s contrary reading of §403(b) is reversed, and its judgment in these cases is remanded for further proceedings.[42]	”
  —JusticeKetanji Brown Jackson

  
  

  States' proposed consent decree motion denied regarding the Rio Grande Compact (2024)

  See also:Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado

  Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court inTexas v. New Mexico and Colorado (2024), a 5-4 holding that Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado's consent decree regarding the Rio Grande Compact would dispose the U.S. government's claims—backed by unique federal interests and SCOTUS precedent—without its consent, and as such the motion was denied. Justice Jackson was joined by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticesSonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan, andBrett Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson wrote:^[43]

  “	Conventional wisdom posits that, because time changes all things, no one can step into the same river twice. This case may be an exception, though, for the same considerations that convinced us to let the United States intervene six Terms ago also lead us to conclude that the United States still has valid Compact claims today. ... Our decision today follows directly from our prior recognition of the United States’ distinct federal interests in the Rio Grande Compact. Having acknowledged those interests, and having allowed the United States to intervene to assert them, we cannot now allow Texas and New Mexico to leave the United States up the river without a paddle.Because the consent decree would dispose of the United States’ Compact claims without its consent, the United States’ exception is sustained, and the States’ motion to enter the consent decree is denied.[42]	”
  —Justice Jackson

  
  

• SCOTUS 2022 term (Click to expand)

  First majority opinion in case concerningescheatment (2023)

  Jackson delivered her first majority opinion for the Supreme Court in February 2023 in the caseDelaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (2023). The Court ruled unanimously that theescheatment of the abandoned monetary proceeds should be governed by the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act (Federal Disposition Act (FDA)), meaning they would revert to the states of purchase, rather than to Moneygram's state of incorporation, Delaware. Justice Jackson wrote:^[44][45]

  “	When a financial product operates like a money order—i.e., when it is a prepaid written instrument used to transmit money to a named payee—and when it would also escheat inequitably solely to the State of incorporation of the company holding the funds under our common-law rules due to recordkeeping gaps, then it is sufficiently “similar”to a money order to fall presumptively within the FDA.Such is the case with the Disputed Instruments. And nothing in the parties’ arguments, the Special Master’s Second Interim Report, or the record in these cases persuades us that the Disputed Instruments should be deemed “third party bank checks.”[42]	”
  —Justice Jackson

  First opinion on the Court, dissenting from denial ofcertiorari in capital case (2022)

  In November 2022, Jackson wrote her first Supreme Court opinion—shedissented from the denial ofcertiorari in capital caseChinn v. Shoop (2022). In her dissent, joined by JusticeSonia Sotomayor, Justice Jackson wrote that she would have taken up the case for the Court's review:^[46][47]

  “	There is no dispute that, during the capital trial of petitioner Davel Chinn, the State suppressed exculpatory evidence indicating that the State’s key witness, Marvin Washington, had an intellectual disability that may have affected Washington’s ability to remember, perceive fact from fiction, and testify accurately. When affirming on direct appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court said “[i]f the jury accepted Washington’s testimony, the jury was certain to convict [Chinn], but if the jury did not believe Washington, it was certain to acquit [Chinn] of all charges.” ... Similarly, the Ohio Court of Appeals said that Washington was the “key” and “main” witness against Chinn. ... Yet, when confronted during state postconviction proceedings with the State’s suppression of evidence that would have substantially impeached this key witness, the Ohio courts suddenly concluded that evidence was not “material” enough to have affected the trial. I write to emphasize the relatively low burden that is “materiality” for purposes ofBrady and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). To prove prejudice under bothBrady and Strickland, a defendant must show “a reasonable probability” of a different outcome. ... We have repeatedly said that the “reasonable probability” standard is not the same as the “more likely than not” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard; it is a qualitatively lesser standard. ... In fact, it is “contrary to” our precedent to equate the “ ‘reasonable probability’ ” materiality standard with the more-likely-than-not standard. The Sixth Circuit did not appropriately apply the materiality standard. Although the Sixth Circuit purported to recognize that the two standards were different, it simultaneously claimed that “ ‘reasonable probability’ forBrady’s purposes is effectively the same as a more-probable-than-not standard.”Chinn v. Warden, 24 F. 4th 1096, 1103 (2022)(emphasis added). It further said that “[t]heBrady ques-tion now” before the court was “whether it is more probable than not that the withheld evidence would have created a different result.”Ibid. That reasoning violated the spirit, if not the letter, of our many cases holding that the two standards are not the same and that “reasonable probability” is a lower standard. Indeed, it is unclear whyStrickland would have spent the time it did considering but rejecting the “more likely than not” standard in favor of the“reasonable probability” standard for prejudice, 466 U. S., at 693–694, if courts could treat them as “effectively the same,” Because Chinn’s life is on the line, and given the substantial likelihood that the suppressed records would have changed the outcome at trial based on the Ohio courts’ own representations ... I would summarily reverse to ensure that the Sixth Circuit conducts its materiality analysis under the proper standard.[42]	”
  —Justice Jackson

  
  

  
  

D.C. district court opinions

• D.C. District Court opinions (2018) (Click to expand)

  District court ruling strikes provisions of executive orders, cites conflict with federal statute (2018)

  Judge Jackson struck down several provisions of President Trump's civil service executive orders in a ruling issued on August 25, 2018. The stricken provisions included components of the executive orders that Jackson ruled conflicted with federal statute—such as limitations on the amount of taxpayer-funded time that full-time federal employees can dedicate to union activities, a reduction in the amount of time that poor-performing employees can demonstrate improvement, and certain restrictions on workplace issues that federal agencies can negotiate with unions.^[48][49]

  AU.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) representative responded to the ruling on August 25, stating that the DOJ was "reviewing the decision and considering our next steps." Then-OPM Director Jeff Pon issued a memo to all federal agencies on August 29 stating that the OPM would comply with Jackson's order and encouraging compliance by other agencies. The OPM also rescinded agencyguidance related to the blocked provisions of the executive orders.^[48][50]

• D.C. District Court opinions (2015) (Click to expand)

  D.C. Corrections unlawfully denied accommodations to imprisoned deaf person (2015)

  William Pierce was deaf and communicated via American Sign Language. In 2012, he pled guilty to a simple assault charge after a domestic dispute with his partner. From February 2 to March 22, 2012, Pierce was imprisoned at the District of Columbia's (District's) Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF). The prison staff was aware that Pierce was deaf, but did not assess Pierce's need for accommodation or assistance so that he could communicate with others during his incarceration. Pierce alleged that the prison staff assumed that lip-reading and exchanging written notes was sufficient accommodation, and that they ignored his repeated requests for an ASL interpreter to help him interact with others. Consequently, Pierce asserted, he served his imprisonment unaware of the happenings around him and unable to communicate effectively with others, including doctors, prison officials, fellow inmates. He sued the District under theAmericans with Disabilities Act. Pierce sought damages, alleging that the District violated federal law by denying him effective means for communication—including during medical appointments, rehabilitation sessions, and meetings with prison officials. Pierce also alleged that the prison staff punished him because of his numerous requests for an interpreter by putting him in solitary confinement, and that such retaliation on their part was against the law.^[51]

  Pierce filed a three-count complaint against the District on February 1, 2013, asserting that the District discriminated against him in violation of Article II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 "by failing to provide ... adequate access to a qualified ASL interpreter, telecommunications devices, visual alarms [,] and visitation." Pierce also claimed that the District further violated both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act "by retaliat[ing] against [him] for asserting his rights." Both Pierce and the District soughtsummary judgment on Pierce's claims the District violated both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Pierce did not requestsummary judgment on his claim of retaliation due to "a material factual dispute regarding whether he was placed in protective custody because he requested accommodations for his disability." The District, however, soughtsummary judgment on the retaliation claim.^[51]

  On September 11, 2015, Jackson delivered a memorandum opinion in which she ruled the District violated the law by denying Pierce's requests for accommodation, and that a reasonable jury could determine that CTF staff did retaliate against Pierce for his requests. She wrote:^[51][52]

  “	Whatis (emphasis in original) astonishing, however, is the District’s insistence in the context of this lawsuit that its employees’ conduct with respect to accommodating Pierce’s hearing disability was entirely consistent with the law. The text and purpose of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA clearly establish otherwise, and as a result, this Court easily concludes that the District’s willful blindness regarding Pierce’s need for accommodation and its half-hearted attempt to provide Pierce with a random assortment of auxiliary aids—and only after he specifically requested them—fellfar (emphasis in original) short of what the law requires. Perhaps most significantly, this Court holds that the District’s clear 60 violation of Section 504 and Title II was manifestfrom the start, when prison employees took no steps whatsoever to ascertain what accommodations this new inmate with a known hearing disability would require so that communications with him would be “as effective as communications with others,” for the purpose of ensuring that he had “an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of” the prison’s services, programs, and activities. ... not only does this Court conclude that the District unlawfully failed to provide Pierce with meaningful access to prison services, it also holds that, on the instant record, a reasonable jury could find that CTF employees retaliated against Pierce as well. Thus, in accordance with the accompanying order, all that remains of Pierce's complaint for trial is the determination of the amount of compensatory damages to be awarded to Pierce with respect to Claims I and II, and the issue of liability (and, if necessary, damages) for Claim III.[42]	”
  —Judge Jackson

About the courts

U.S. Supreme Court

TheSupreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronymSCOTUS.^[53]

The Supreme Court consists of nine justices: theChief Justice of the United States and eightAssociate Justices. The justices are nominated by thepresident and confirmed with the"advice and consent" of theUnited States Senate perArticle II of the United States Constitution. As federal judges, the justices serve during "good behavior," which means that justices have tenure for life unless they are removed by impeachment and subsequent conviction.^[54]

The Supreme Court is the only court established by theUnited States Constitution (inArticle III); all other federal courts are created byCongress.

The Supreme Court meets inWashington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.^[54]

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 11
Judges: 11
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief:Sri Srinivasan
Active judges: Julianna Michelle Childs,Bradley Garcia,Karen Henderson,Greg Katsas,Patricia Ann Millett,Florence Pan,Cornelia T. L. Pillard,Neomi Rao,Srikanth Srinivasan,Justin Walker,Robert Leon Wilkins Senior judges: James Buckley,Harry Edwards,Douglas Ginsburg,Arthur Randolph,Judith Rogers,David Sentelle,David Tatel

TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is afederal appellate court with appellatejurisdiction. It hears appeals from theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia and its rulings may be appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States.

This court should not be confused with theDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is equivalent to a state supreme court in the District of Columbia, or with theFederal Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction is limited by subject matter. Appeals are heard in the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse inWashington, D.C.

Eight judges of the District of Columbia Circuit went on to serve on theSupreme Court of the United States: Fred M. Vinson, Wiley Rutledge, Warren Burger,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Antonin Scalia,Clarence Thomas,John Roberts, andBrett Kavanaugh.

TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by the D.C. Circuit are petitioned to theSupreme Court of the United States.

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

District of Columbia
District of Columbia Circuit
Judgeships
Posts: 15
Judges: 15
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief:James E. Boasberg
Active judges: Amir Ali,Loren AliKhan,James E. Boasberg,Tanya S. Chutkan,Jia Cobb,Rudolph Contreras,Christopher Reid Cooper,Dabney Friedrich,Timothy J. Kelly,Trevor McFadden,Amit Priyavadan Mehta,Randolph D. Moss,Carl Nichols,Ana C. Reyes,Sparkle Sooknanan Senior judges: John Deacon Bates,Rosemary Collyer,Paul Friedman,Joyce Hens Green,Thomas Hogan,Beryl A. Howell,Ellen Huvelle,Amy B. Jackson,Henry Kennedy,Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,Royce Lamberth,Richard Leon,Richard Roberts,Barbara Rothstein,Emmet G. Sullivan,Reggie Walton

TheUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia is one of 94United States district courts. Cases dealing with the laws of the District of Columbia are heard by this court only under the same circumstances that would cause a case under state law to come before a federal court. Appeals from this court are heard by theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The court sits in the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse located on Constitution Avenue NW. The District has no local district attorney or equivalent, and so prosecutorial matters fall under the jurisdiction of theUnited States Attorney for the District of Columbia.The District Court for the District of Columbia hasoriginal jurisdiction over cases filed in the District of Columbia. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. The D.C. District Court hears federal cases within the District of Columbia. Its appellate court is theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• United States Supreme Court cases and courts
• Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearings
• Supreme Court vacancy, 2022
• United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• United States District Court for the District of Columbia

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• Supreme Court of the United States website
• Biography from theFederal Judicial Center
• Profile byOyez
• Profile from theSupreme Court Historical Society
• White House press release announcing President Biden's intent to nominate Jackson

Footnotes

v • e Justices of theSupreme Court of the United States
Active justices	Chief justice:Roberts Associate justices:Alito •Barrett •Gorsuch •Jackson •Kagan •Kavanaugh •Sotomayor •Thomas
Senior justices	Breyer •Kennedy •Souter
Former chief justices	Burger •Chase •Ellsworth •Fuller •Hughes •Jay •Marshall •Rehnquist •Rutledge •Stone •Taft •Taney •Vinson •Waite •Warren • White
Former associate justices	O'Connor •Baldwin •Barbour •Black •Blackmun •Blair •Blatchford •Bradley •Brandeis •Brennan •Brewer •Brown •Burton •Butler •Byrnes •Campbell •Cardozo •Catron •Chase •Clark •Clarke •Clifford •Curtis •Cushing •Daniel •Davis •Day •Douglas •Duvall •Field •Fortas •Frankfurter •Ginsburg •Goldberg •Gray •Grier •Harlan I •Harlan II •Holmes •Hunt •Iredell •H. Jackson •R. Jackson •T. Johnson •W. Johnson, Jr. •J. Lamar •L. Lamar •Livingston •Lurton •Marshall •Matthews •McKenna •McKinley •McLean •McReynolds •Miller •Minton •Moody •Moore •Murphy •Nelson •Paterson •Peckham •Pitney •Powell •Reed •Roberts •W. Rutledge •Sanford •Scalia •Shiras •Stevens •Stewart •Story •Strong •Sutherland •Swayne •Thompson •Todd •Trimble •Van Devanter •Washington •Wayne •B. White •Whittaker •Wilson •Woodbury •Woods

v • e Federal judges nominated to Article III courts byJoe Biden
Commissioned in 2025	Keli Neary
Commissioned in 2024	John Kazen •John Russell •Margaret Garnett •Cristal Brisco •Jacquelyn Austin •Gretchen Hess Lund •Micah Smith •Joshua Kolar •Karoline Mehalchick •Kirk Sherriff •Lisa Wang •David Leibowitz •Jacqueline Becerra •Julie Sneed •Melissa Damian •Kelly H. Rankin •Nicole Berner •Sunil Harjani •Leon Schydlower •Ernesto Gonzalez •Susan Bazis •Robert White •Ann Marie McIff Allen •Eumi Lee •Krissa Lanham •Eric Schulte •Camela Theeler •Angela Martinez •Jasmine Yoon •Nancy Maldonado •Meredith Vacca •Georgia Alexakis •Joseph Saporito •Amy Baggio •Stacey Neumann •Mary Kay Lanthier •Adam Abelson •Laura Provinzino •Mary Kay Costello •Dena Coggins •Kevin Ritz •Shanlyn A. S. Park •Byron Conway •Jeannette Vargas •Michelle Williams Court •Jonathan E. Hawley •April Perry •Mustafa Kasubhai •Sarah Russell •Amir Ali •Rebecca Pennell •Anthony Brindisi •Elizabeth Coombe •Cynthia Valenzuela •Anne Hwang •Brian Murphy •Noël Wise •Sanket Bulsara •Tiffany Johnson •Sparkle Sooknanan •Gail Weilheimer •Embry Kidd •Melissa DuBose •Sharad Desai •Serena R. Murillo •Benjamin Cheeks •Sarah Davenport
Commissioned in 2023	Kai Scott •Tamika Montgomery-Reeves •Margaret R. Guzman •Daniel Calabretta •Matthew Garcia •DeAndrea G. Benjamin •Cindy Chung •Adrienne Nelson •Lindsay Jenkins •Gina Méndez-Miró •Araceli Martínez-Olguín •Jamar Walker •Ana Reyes •Jamal Whitehead •Gordon Gallagher •Matthew Brookman•Maria Araujo Kahn• James Simmons •Robert Ballou• Andrew Schopler •Jonathan Grey•Colleen Lawless •Arun Subramanian •Jessica Clarke •Robert Kirsch •Michael Farbiarz •Anthony Johnstone •Orelia Merchant •Wesley Hsu •Bradley Garcia •LaShonda A. Hunt •Nancy Gbana Abudu •Amanda Brailsford •Darrel Papillion •Jeremy Daniel •Hernan D. Vera •Julie Rikelman •Nusrat Choudhury •P. Casey Pitts •Myong Joun •Kymberly Evanson •Tiffany Cartwright •Rachel Bloomekatz •Natasha Merle •Dale Ho •Philip Hadji •Rita Lin •Brendan Hurson •Vernon D. Oliver •Matthew Maddox •Julia Munley •Brandy McMillion •Susan DeClercq •Julia Kobick •Ramon Reyes, Jr. •Ana de Alba •Kenly Kiya Kato •Mónica Ramírez Almadani •Jeffrey M. Bryan •Jamel Semper •Irma Ramirez •Richard Federico •Loren AliKhan •Brandon Long •Jerry Edwards Jr.•Sara Hill •Joseph Laroski
Commissioned in 2022	David Herrera Urias •Gabriel Sanchez •Holly Thomas •Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong •David Ruiz •Charles Fleming •Bridget Brennan •Leonard Stark •Alison J. Nathan •John Chun •Julie Rubin •Jacqueline Scott Corley •Ruth Bermudez Montenegro •Victoria Calvert •Georgette Castner •Anne Traum •Cristina Silva •Ketanji Brown Jackson (Supreme Court) •Sarah Geraghty •Hector Gonzalez •Fred Slaughter •Jennifer Rochon •Robert Huie •Sunshine S. Sykes • Stephanie Dawkins Davis • Evelyn Padin • Sherilyn P. Garnett • Ana de Alba • J. Michelle Childs • Trina Thompson • Elizabeth Hanes • Nancy Maldonado • Nina Morrison • Gregory Williams • John Z. Lee • Sal Mendoza, Jr. • Lara Montecalvo • Florence Pan • Andre Mathis • Sarah A.L. Merriam •Jennifer Rearden • Roopali Desai • María Antongiorgi-Jordán • Camille Vélez-Rivé • Doris Pryor • Frances Kay Behm • Dana Douglas • Mia Roberts Perez • Anne Nardacci •Jeffery P. Hopkins
Commissioned in 2021	Ketanji Brown Jackson • Zahid Quraishi •Julien Xavier Neals • Deborah Boardman • Regina Rodriguez • Candace Jackson-Akiwumi • Lydia Kay Griggsby • Tiffany Cunningham • Eunice Lee • Angel Kelley •Florence Pan •Veronica Rossman • David G. Estudillo • Sarah A.L. Merriam •Gustavo Gelpí • Christine O'Hearn •Margaret Strickland • Karen McGlashan Williams •Patricia Tolliver Giles • Toby Heytens •Michael Nachmanoff •Sarala Nagala • Beth Robinson • Omar A. Williams • Myrna Pérez • Jia Cobb • Tana Lin • Lauren King • Lucy H. Koh • Jennifer Sung • Samantha Elliott • Katherine Menendez • Mary Dimke • Linda Lopez • Shalina Kumar • Jane Beckering • Jinsook Ohta • Jennifer L. Thurston •Stephen Locher •Charlotte Sweeney •Nina Nin-Yuen Wang •Arianna Freeman •Jerry Blackwell

v • e Federal judges nominated byBarack Obama
Nominated	Federal judges nominated by Barack Obama