>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
In response to the urgency, Louisiana officials asked the Court to waive its standard 32-day waiting period between a ruling and its formal enforcement. The state argued that adhering to that timeline would only deepen the chaos and delay critical election preparations.
That request sparked a sharp divide among the justices.
Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent, accusing the majority of prioritizing power over principle. In her sharply worded objection, she warned that “principles give way to power,” signaling deep concern over how the ruling—and its rushed implementation—could impact public trust in the Court.
Her criticism did not go unanswered.
Samuel Alito fired back in a strongly worded response, defending the Court’s decision to move forward without delay and taking direct aim at Jackson’s arguments.
“The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional,” Alito wrote, framing the disagreement as a matter of upholding constitutional integrity rather than political maneuvering.
He went on to dismantle the dissent’s reasoning point by point, arguing that there was no practical barrier preventing Louisiana from adopting a new, lawful map in time for upcoming elections.
“The dissent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution. Nor does the dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map,” Alito wrote.
Alito didn’t stop there. He sharply criticized the rationale offered by Jackson, calling it weak and misguided.
“Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting,” he added.
Addressing the procedural argument, Alito pointed to flexibility within the Court’s own rules.
“The first is compliance with the 32-day default rule set out in this Court’s Rule 45.3, but as the Court’s order ex- plains, there is good reason to depart from the default rule here,” he explained.
He also rejected the notion that speeding up enforcement would create an “appearance of partiality.”
“The second reason offered by the dissent is that we should allow the 32-day period to run out in order to ‘avoid the appearance of partiality,’” Alito continued.
In a pointed rebuttal, he turned that claim on its head.
“But the dissent does not explain why its insistence on unthinking compliance with Rule 45.3’s default rule does not create the appearance of partiality (by running out the clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map,” he wrote.
Alito also took issue with the broader accusation that the Court was acting improperly.
“The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power,” Alito said, adding, “That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”
He concluded by questioning what rule or standard the Court had allegedly violated.
“What principle has the Court violated? The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably criticized as partisan?” he wrote.
Closing with a final jab, Alito turned the criticism back toward Jackson’s tone.
“The dissent accuses the Court of ‘unshackl[ing]’ itself from ‘constraints.’ It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.”
As Louisiana scrambles to redraw its districts and salvage its election timeline, the battle inside the Supreme Court highlights a deeper divide—not just over law, but over how power, procedure, and perception intersect at the highest level of the judiciary.
