Justice Jackson Criticizes Supreme Court for Favoring Trump Administration in Grant Case

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s conservative majority for consistently siding with the Trump administration, particularly in cases involving executive power and judicial review. In a dissent regarding the National Institutes of Health (NIH) v. American Public Health Association case, she condemned the court’s ruling that challenges to the administration's cancellation of federal health grants must be filed in the Court of Federal Claims rather than federal district courts, describing the decision as a ‘bizarre claim-splitting regime’ that undermines effective judicial review. Jackson likened the court’s approach to ‘Calvinball jurisprudence,’ a reference to a game with no fixed rules, accusing her colleagues of bending rules to ensure the administration always wins. She warned that this trend threatens scientific progress by allowing future administrations to terminate grants without accountability and weakens checks on government authority. This dissent highlights her broader concern over the conservative justices' efforts to limit courts' ability to check executive actions, a pattern she views as harmful to the rule of law and public interest. While the court’s conservative justices argue procedural grounds for their decisions, Jackson frames these rulings as partisan maneuvers that prioritize executive power over legal constraints.