Justice Brown Jackson can still have 'huge impact' on divided court, scholar says

It's been another historic week for the Supreme Court of the United States. Following momentous rulings on abortion, guns and the Environmental Protection Agency, Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice Thursday, taking over for retired Justice Stephen Breyer and becoming the first Black woman to serve on the court. Angela Onwuachi-Willig, dean of Boston University School of Law, joined hosts Paris Alston and Jeremy Siegel on GBH’s Morning Edition to talk about Brown Jackson’s appointment to the court. This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Paris Alston: In thinking about how the court made its decisions this month, in light of those words we just heard from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, how do the words of the Supreme Court oath to administer justice and to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich" resonate with you?

Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig: Incredibly important words. Someone's taking the oath to really sit on the highest court of the land, to really think about the impacts on all people — including those most vulnerable, rich or poor, a variety of individuals in the United States — as they are issuing rulings on the court. I think they are really, really powerful words. It's good to be reminded of them. It was moving to see her sworn in, and also moving to see and hear her sworn in by the justice she clerked for [Stephen Breyer].

Jeremy Siegel: For someone who isn't a legal expert, who isn't living and breathing the law like I you are every day, and like Supreme Court justices are, it's hard to imagine what it would be like to be sworn in to such a huge job, but also at such a turbulent moment in the court. What do you think she was feeling yesterday and is feeling today as she joins the court?

Onwuachi-Willig: I could imagine a huge range of emotions, everything from pure excitement and pride, which she should be feeling, to concern. Because it's a huge burden, I believe, on her shoulders. I think so many of us have thought she would come in and really be someone who could draw different justices, maybe across party lines, across different lines, and be somebody who could be a consensus builder on the court. The rulings from the court this summer so far have suggested that it would be hard for anyone to come in and be a real consensus builder. I still have faith that she will have a huge impact, because I think that simply in deliberations, the way that she would discuss various facts, the various ways in which particular rulings might affect people, might shape how the majority drafts its opinion so that it's less damaging, for my perspective, on everyday people who are living in the United States.

Alston: During a GBH special on the Roe decision yesterday, we discussed this question of how a legal body interprets what we as a nation may have presumed to be settled law when we don't necessarily have settled values. And maybe there is some question about how the court is interpreting the words in that oath that Justice Brown Jackson took. What's your take on that?

Onwuachi-Willig: It's very rare to see a decision that has been a part of the law of the land for more than 50 years be overturned. I think that a lot of justices, if you watch some of the hearings going back, they didn't necessarily concede that Roe was settled law. And so I think that it's not surprising. And we know from [former] President [Donald] Trump, that he promised to appoint justices that would overturn Roe. And I think that there were disagreements about what was settled law. Everybody agreed that, for example, Brown v. Board of Education, was settled law, but not everyone agreed that Roe was settled law. Usually a decision that has been standing for that long, a decision that had been decided by a majority of Republican justices, and that was later in many ways upheld by another court that was filled with Republican justices — you would not see overturned. But it's not surprising, given some of the comments people made during their hearings and given President Trump's promise.

Siegel: You mentioned that Ketanji Brown Jackson could be a consensus builder. Last time we spoke to you, you also talked about the fact that she's making history not only as the first Black woman on the court, but as the first former public defender on the Supreme Court. We just saw the court rule that defendants cannot win civil cases against officers who don't read them their Miranda rights. Thinking about future cases where her history as a public defender could come into play, how do you think that could affect the way that she decides cases on the court?

Onwuachi-Willig: The last justice who represented indigent clients was Justice Thurgood Marshall. And after Justice Marshall passed away, you heard Justice Sandra Day O'Connor talk about how the ways in which he would tell stories about his work on actual cases representing defendants shaped her and shaped her colleagues on the court. And I think that Justice Brown Jackson has the capacity to have that same impact. To be talking about what's the real import of Miranda warnings, for example, for someone who is being questioned by the police, why they might feel pressured — really, truly feel pressured — to answer particular questions, why it's important that they receive those warnings. There are a variety of really kind of down in the weeds, really detailed reasons and insight she could offer as someone who was representing clients who were grappling with all the things that courts will be considering in important criminal procedure cases and important criminal law cases. And so I think there's so much she could offer. Because if you haven't practiced an area of law, you really don't know how things operate practically. And she will be able to bring that perspective to the court.