Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman justice on the US Supreme Court, has once again become the center of controversy after appearing on the cover of the latest issue of Essence magazine. Described on the cover as a 'champion of the people,' Jackson is accused of blurring the line between her judicial role and a celebrity lifestyle.
Georgia attorney Andrew Fleischman voiced his reaction, saying, "Supreme Court justices are not celebrities and should not be treated as such." Libertarian magazine reporter Billy Binion emphasized that Jackson does not need to be a 'champion of the people,' and that her job is to interpret the law.
Civil rights attorney Laura Powell made a similar criticism, writing that judges do not need political slogans and should focus on interpreting the law according to the Constitution.
Jackson's off-the-bench activities have drawn criticism before. The justice's attendance at the Grammy Awards, visits to Broadway shows, and a photo shoot for Vogue have been criticized by conservative circles and legal observers for violating the distinction between judicial service and celebrity life.
In February, Jackson responded to criticism of her Grammy attendance on The View, saying, "Part of my job is public relations and education. When justices are on recess — as we are now — we have the opportunity to reach out to the community in various ways."
However, Jackson is not the only justice to face such criticism. Other Supreme Court members also report book income, teaching fees, and gifts in their annual financial disclosures. Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared on magazine covers in 2015, and Sonia Sotomayor in 2009.
Michelle Zier, an assistant professor at Concordia University Chicago, recalled Alexander Hamilton's warning in Federalist 78 that judges should avoid the temptation to be seen as champions of the people.
Sam Weinberg, who runs a progressive advocacy group, shared his view on the matter, saying, "Honestly, it's not even close to the worst or weirdest thing a justice has done, but yes, we really do need a Supreme Court ethics code."
