This is outrageous.
The U.S. Supreme Court is making headlines after one of its own members, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, openly blasted her colleagues for siding with President Donald Trump’s administration in a major case over federal grant money.
Jackson, appointed by Joe Biden, issued a fiery 19-page dissent filled with sharp attacks, accusing the Court of bending rules to favor Trump. She compared the decision-making process to “Calvinball,” a children’s game with no rules, claiming the justices were writing new laws instead of following the Constitution.
Trump Wins Key Battle Over $783 Million in Grants
At the heart of the dispute was nearly $783 million in taxpayer-funded NIH grants, much of it tied to left-wing priorities such as diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, gender ideology research, and COVID projects. The Trump administration argued these grants were wasteful and out of step with America’s real needs.
In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court allowed the administration’s cancellation of those grants to move forward—for now. The decision delivered a significant win for Trump’s efforts to restore accountability and limit spending on progressive pet projects.
Jackson’s Outburst Highlights Liberal Activism
Justice Jackson was furious, warning that “life-saving biomedical research” was in danger. But critics note her outrage had less to do with medical science and more to do with protecting the Biden administration’s progressive agenda.
Her dissent stretched longer than all other opinions combined, with language that one law professor described as “histrionic and hyperbolic.” Jackson has quickly built a reputation as the most outspoken liberal voice on the bench, often portraying her conservative colleagues as enemies of democracy itself.
Barrett Pushes Back Hard
Even Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s appointees, delivered sharp words for Jackson. In a separate opinion, Barrett accused Jackson of pushing an “imperial judiciary” and dismissed her dramatic warnings. Barrett stressed that the law requires challenges to be brought by grant recipients, not activists trying to protect political programs.
Barrett did join the liberals in a limited portion of the ruling, but she made clear the Trump administration’s broader position remains strong as the case continues through lower courts.
A Clear Divide on the Court
The clash highlights the growing divide on the high court:
- Conservatives pushing for fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits.
- Liberals demanding endless taxpayer dollars for ideological projects.
For millions of Americans, the fight underscores why President Trump’s judicial appointments were so critical — to stop runaway spending and restore balance to a system often hijacked by the left.
