White Supremacy & Its Ugly Head: Critics Slam Justice Barrett’s Disrespect Toward Colleague at the U.S. Supreme Court.

White Supremacy & Its Ugly Head: Critics Slam Justice Barrett’s Disrespect Toward Colleague at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Americas

The news as it trends

Day in and day out in America, decisions are made at the Supreme Court that affect human lives.

The Supreme Court is an arm of government, not a place where a single person can dominate based on education, intelligence, political connections, or presidential appointment.

It was designed to uphold law and justice, not personal agendas or vendettas.

In a rare and unusually pointed exchange, Justice Amy Coney Barrett has come under fire for a scathing rebuke of fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a recent Supreme Court ruling related to birthright citizenship and executive power.

Supreme Court justices are appointed to interpret the law, not to silence each other or act in a shadowy move to become the boss of anyone.

One justice’s opinion does not need to align with another’s either.

That is the very essence of why each has the right to publish their legal interpretations for the public record.

But when the process appears to take a racially charged tone, critics raise the alarm.

They argue that this type of exchange should never happen at the Supreme Court of Justice, where millions are watching and ready to scrutinize every opinion.

In a recent ruling on a citizenship question brought before the Court by the Trump administration, Justice Jackson exercised her constitutional duty by issuing a dissenting opinion, as the system is designed to allow.

Suddenly, Justice Barrett, a Caucasian woman writing for the conservative majority, directly named and criticized Jackson’s dissent.

This marked an unusual break from tradition, where justices typically refer to “the dissent” without naming colleagues.

Barrett accused Jackson, an African American woman, of embracing an “imperial judiciary” and argued that her reasoning was “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent.”

While the phrase may sound fancy and loaded with soundbite appeal, it is unclear what exactly Barrett meant by “imperial judiciary,” especially considering that the American judicial system has never modeled itself after any imperial structure.

Some have taken to social media to school Coney Barrett on judicial decorum, citing the Court’s long-standing practice of upholding broad jurisdictional authority, including the use of nationwide injunctions.

Her language was widely seen as unusually confrontational and unnecessarily lashing out, a soundbite seemingly crafted to appease the MAGA world.

Legal and public observers described her tone as strategic, unnecessary, and hostile.

On social media, far-right voices tried to portray Justice Jackson as a token diversity hire, especially as the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court, but the backlash was swift.

Many legal scholars defended Jackson’s credentials and criticized Barrett’s remarks as out of step with the Court’s ethos of collegiality and mutual respect.

Barrett’s callout was seen as a direct affront to a colleague with not only a prestigious pedigree, but an extraordinary resume and deep judicial experience.

Critics argued she could have made her point without naming Jackson, just as dissenting opinions have been handled for decades.

Some speculate that Barrett’s unusually sharp tone may reflect unease over Jackson’s growing presence and influence, a progressive voice that speaks with both intellect and clarity.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, 54, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College and cum laude from Harvard Law School.

She is the only Supreme Court justice to have served as a federal public defender and went on to serve on both the U.S. District Court and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals before her Supreme Court appointment in 2022.

Her bestselling memoir, Lovely One, earned her nearly $3 million in royalties.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, 53, graduated magna cum laude from Rhodes College and summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, where she ranked first in her class.

She clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, taught law at Notre Dame, and was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2020. She is set to release her debut book, Listening to the Law, in September 2025.

While strong disagreements are part of the Court’s history, this public clash between two justices, both women, one a historic trailblazer, has reignited difficult conversations around race, judicial decorum, and the boundaries of dissent.

As the ideological divide at the Court deepens, so too does the scrutiny of how justices wield not only their votes, but their voices.

In the political climate shaped by the Trump era, many people of color who attain prestigious positions, despite being highly qualified or even overqualified, still face an unspoken bias.

Too often, they are painted with the broad brush of being a “diversity hire,” regardless of their credentials, experience, or demonstrated excellence.

That quiet undermining casts doubt on their legitimacy and reflects the deeper discomfort some have with power being shared across lines of race and identity.

Yetunde Babajide reports for Yeyetunde’s Blog.

Images / Justice Jackson /Amy Coney Barrett /Instagram.