Is the Supreme Court Becoming a Platform for Personal Expression?
Twice this summer, dissents written by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson have generated unusually sharp responses from others on the bench. Most notably, in response to Brown Jackson’s dissent of her majority opinion on injunctions and birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote,
We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary. . .. She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.
More recently, Justice Sonia Sotomayor schooled her fellow liberal colleague on a case in which Brown Jackson was the sole dissent. Though she didn’t exactly call Brown Jackson’s 15-page opinion a dumpster fire, Sotomayor pointed out that much of it was not relevant to the case before the Court.
Some conservative critics of Brown Jackson refer to her as “a DEI hire.” In addition to being disrespectful to her and the office, the actual situation is more complicated, best explained by her understanding of law and justice, as well as the role of the Supreme Court and what it means to be a Judge.
In a 2001 speech, prior to her own nomination to the High CourtSotomayor summarized this understanding:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
This is a textbook example of “standpoint epistemology.” In this view, truth is determined by background and lived experience. Within the framing of Critical Theory, minorities and women have a different, broader range of experience to draw from and thus have superior wisdom and understanding than the majority culture. Thus, knowledge, language, and morality are to be understood in terms of power relations.
For Sotomayor, this must shape her work from the bench. In the same 2001 speech, quoting another law professor, she stated as much: “To judge is an exercise of power.” In other words, judicial decisions shape social and legal realities, so judges should draw from their background to interpret the law in ways that may not align with the law’s intent but will result in a fairer and more empathetic society. This is especially true in promoting the perspectives and interests of oppressed groups in society.
Though Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy clearly influences her jurisprudence, she understands that limits are imposed by the rules of the Court and submits to them. Brown Jackson does not. In a recent interview, she said,
I have been privileged to . . . use the writings that I do, the work that I do, to explain my views about the way our government does and should work; the way the Court does and should work. I think the nice part about being on the Court is you have the opportunity, whether you’re in the majority or in the dissent, to express your opinions. … I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people, in my opinions, how I feel about the issues. And that’s what I try to do.
Whereas Sotomayor recognizes that her job is interpreting the law from her “wise Latina” perspective, Brown Jackson does not even mention the law. Her judicial opinions are inseparable from her personal opinions. Her job as a judge is to express her views about how the courts and government should work and her feelings about the issue. It is not to interpret the law or the Constitution.
While Sotomayor’s views are informed by Critical Theory, Brown Jackson’s judicial philosophy is a form of Expressive Individualism. In this view, truth is to express one’s sense of self, expecting others and reality to conform. Expressive Individualism was, of course, the underlying worldview that made transgenderism plausible, and it leads a Supreme Court justice to reduce judicial interpretation to nothing other than personal opinion, to which the law, the Constitution, and the rule of law should conform.
As Coney Barrett observed, this logic would lead to an imperial judiciary, and our laws would be made subject to the whims of the justices. Ideas have consequences. The consequences of Expressive Individualism on the Supreme Court would be judicial tyranny.
Photo Courtesy: ©RNS/AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana
Published Date: July 16, 2025
John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and radio host of BreakPoint, a daily national radio program providing thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN), and is the co-author of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.
The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of CrosswalkHeadlines.
BreakPoint is a program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. BreakPoint commentaries offer incisive content people can't find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion. Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 – 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today's news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.
