Supreme Court's junior justice goes on solo tear as Trump fights put her at odds with the bench

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood out from her colleagues this week when she broke with them to rail against the high court's decision to fast-track its landmark order dismantling a key provision in the Voting Rights Act. 

Ideological divides over high-profile cases have been common. The trio of liberals has remained unified against the Trump administration by opposing decisions, including on the interim docket, to curb universal injunctions, allow states to ban transgender medical treatments for minors, permit Trump to fire members of independent agencies, authorize the government to cancel immigrants' temporary protected status and more.

But even in some of those cases, Jackson goes on solo diatribes, highlighting a deeper internal divide within the liberal bloc.

Below are five recent times Jackson gave lone opinions.

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's map last month, finding 6-3 it contained an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Jackson, the bench's most junior justice, broke with her eight colleagues in that decision, saying the court improperly "[dove] into the fray" of active elections by handing its judgment down immediately.

"Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation," Jackson wrote.

"We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barrett wrote in the court's opinion in 2025. "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

Jackson wrote that nationwide injunctions should be permissible because the courts should not allow the president to "violate the Constitution." 

Barrett disagreed.

"She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush," Barrett wrote.

The high court fractured last August in dual 5-4 decisions that allowed the National Institutes of Health to cancel nearly $800 million in research grants.

"This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules," Jackson wrote. "We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins."

Some of the canceled grants were geared toward research on diversity, equity and inclusion; COVID-19; and gender identity. Jackson argued the grants went further and that "life-saving biomedical research" was at stake.

Kagan, an Obama appointee, said Jackson's view "rests on reimagining-and in that way collapsing-the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions."

The Supreme Court reversed the decision by the lower court, saying it should have weighed the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding the vehicle and approved of an officer's decision to briefly detain the man.

The decision was 7-2, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor opposed the ruling while also opting against joining Jackson's dissent. Jackson accused the majority of trying to "wordsmith" and interfere with a typically routine evaluation of a police stop.

"I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court," Jackson wrote.

Jackson said during her appearance this year on "The View" that "criticism is part of the job."

"Dissents are an opportunity for the justices who disagree with the majority to really describe their view of the law but also their concerns," Jackson said, adding that "you hope that your view will prevail in the long run."

Fox News Digital reached out to the Supreme Court's press office for comment.