Why Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Matters More Than You Think

Mathew Habib - Chief

January 2026

When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the Supreme Court, history was made. She became the first Black woman to ever sit on the Court. That matters. But what stands out to me most is not the milestone itself. It is how she approaches the role.

When I listen to Justice Jackson during oral arguments, I notice that her questions consistently focus on impact. She asks what a ruling will actually do once it leaves the courtroom. Who will be affected? How will power be exercised? Those questions are not emotional appeals. They are legal ones.

Justice Jackson’s background helps explain this approach. Before joining the Court, she worked as a public defender and later as a trial judge. That experience gives her a practical understanding of how laws are enforced, not just how they are written. From my perspective, that is a perspective the Supreme Court has historically lacked.

Too often, constitutional debates stay abstract. But the law operates in real places, like prisons, schools, and workplaces. Justice Jackson repeatedly brings the Court back to those realities, especially in cases involving criminal justice and civil rights.

Her dissents are another area where her influence is already clear. When the Court reaches decisions that narrow rights or expand punishment, Justice Jackson carefully explains what those choices mean in practice. I find her dissents especially important because they preserve an alternative legal vision for the future. Many landmark changes in American law began as dissents that initially stood alone.

Justice Jackson’s presence on the Court also matters institutionally. For most of its history, the Supreme Court has been shaped by a narrow range of professional and social backgrounds. KBJ brings experience across all three branches of government and a firsthand understanding of how the justice system affects ordinary people. That changes the conversation, even when it does not change the outcome.

Some critics claim that this focus on real-world impact shows bias. I disagree. Considering consequences is not activism. It is responsible judging. Courts do not operate in a vacuum, and pretending otherwise does not make decisions more neutral.

For students and young people paying attention to the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson offers a different model of judicial leadership. She demonstrates that legal reasoning can be rigorous without being detached, and principled without being blind to inequality.

From where I stand, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s role on the Court is already significant. Not because she seeks attention, but because she insists on clarity, accountability, and honesty about how the law functions. That influence will likely grow over time, and it is one worth paying attention to.