Ketanji Brown Jackson and Her New Memoir

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is out with a new memoir chronicling her family’s rise from segregation to her confirmation as the first Black woman on the nation’s highest court, all in a single generation. Geoff Bennett spoke with Justice Jackson earlier today in New York about her memoir, Lovely One.

Justice Jackson, thanks so much for speaking with us. We appreciate it.

Thank you for having me.

This book, your memoir, what Comes through is how your story is such a uniquely American story, a real powerful testament to this country’s progress. And you write about how your parents are the products of segregation, but they poured into you. And what strikes me about your story is that they poured into you with such powerful and purposeful effort and deliberate intention. What values did they impart that really helped guide your life and your professional journey?

Well, as I said, thank you for having me and giving me the opportunity to talk about the book and talk about my parents who really did instill values like hard work and love of country, love of self. They had a fierce pride in our African-American identity, which comes up in my name. The book is called Lovely One because that is the English translation of my African name, given name, Ketanji Onyika. And my parents, I just wanted to be so much like them when I was little. My father went back to law school when I was three, four years old, and I remember him studying and that was one of my earliest memories. And my parents were educators originally when I was born. And so the idea of the importance of education and working hard and striving to achieve something all come from my parents.

As the first Black woman to serve on the US Supreme Court, how do you perceive your role in the broader context of American history and progress?

Well, it definitely demonstrates progress, I think. So many people have received my appointment in that light. I’m the first Black woman, as you say, but not the first Black woman who could have done this job. I think about Constance Baker Motley, who I talk about in the book and who was a role model for me. She was the first African-American federal judge and she argued something like 11 cases in the Supreme Court. But she grew up and came up in a time in which it wouldn’t have been possible for her to be appointed to the court. And so I feel so fortunate to be in this position and it shows the progress that we’ve made as a country.

What does being a first mean in practical terms?

Well, I think it that we are moving now to a time in which anyone has the opportunity to do what they want to do in our society. And I hope that seeing my appointment would be motivational for children, just like Judge Motley was motivational for me.

How do you engage with the other justices? Justice Breyer, as I understand it, he used to like to go to other justices’ chambers and have direct conversations, others prefer written communication. How do you do it and how do you navigate differences in legal interpretation?

I think a little bit of both. I learned from Justice Breyer who, as you say, was a great collaborator as someone who really did like to gauge personally with the other justices. Sometimes I go around, but I think we probably mostly communicate by memo and also by phone. And you do your best to try to persuade people that you have the better of the argument or at least the way that you’re thinking about it is the way the court should approach a particular issue.

You have at times aligned in your opinions with Justice Neil Gorsuch, but for the most part you’re part of a three-justice liberal minority. How do you grapple with at times having limited ability to sway the outcomes of consequential, oftentimes divisive cases?

Well, I’m an optimist at heart and you look at every case and you do your best to ask the questions at oral argument that you think might get people thinking. And you do your best through your clerks and other members of your staff to communicate with them your position and you also hear their position and try to understand where they’re coming from to bridge whatever differences there are. But I’m not going to lie. It’s not easy to be sure, but I am always of the belief that people are persuadable and that’s what I’m here to try to do.

Has that worked?

In some cases, yes. I mean, the court is a deliberative body and our duty and our job is to listen to one another and try to come to the best decision.

How do you think the court is best positioned to maintain the public trust?

Well, maintaining the public trust is a very important aspect of the court’s work. This is something that Justice Breyer talks about all the time. And when I was clerking for him, now it’s one of his big themes that the court, unlike the other branches of government, doesn’t have an army and it doesn’t have power of the purse. And so we really do have to persuade people that the is trustworthy in order to ensure that the rule of law is maintained. I think the court needs to, I can tell you what I do, really focus on the role of the court in a democratic society. We have a constitutional republic, there are other branches of government, and so I’m really focused on ensuring that I am staying in my lane in my decisions and in the cases that come before us. I’m thinking about consistency across the various cases regardless of who brings the claims at issue. And I am working diligently to set aside my personal views as I did as a lower court judge and as a judge on the Court of Appeals.

Oh, in the matter of court ethics, you’ve said that you are open to proposals to implement an enforceable code of ethics for justices. President Biden has also urged the adoption of an 18-year term limit for the justices. Should there be term limits for Supreme Court justices?

Well, here’s how I’m thinking about that. There have been debates about term limits since the beginning of our republic. I talk about this in the book a little bit. Alexander Hamilton debated the anti-federalists as to whether or not judges should have lifetime appointments. And the constitutional process was such that he won that debate and that’s what we have now in our system. And so it’s a political process to make a determination as to whether or not that should be changed. And in our democracy, people are engaging in that debate right now.

The idea though, as President Biden has suggested, that it’s a good thing to have more consistency in this process and that 18 years, as he suggested, is a good approach.

Well, I’m going to let the political process play out and people are engaged in this decision right now, and it’ll be interesting to see what we decide.

The court’s recent rulings on voting rights, reproductive rights, presidential immunity. In your view, how have those rulings fundamentally changed American life?

Well, the court hears some of the most significant cases. That’s the role of the court in our constitutional design. We take issues that are difficult because if they weren’t difficult, they wouldn’t make their way all the way to the Supreme Court. And many of those issues, as you’ve indicated, deal with pretty complicated social issues. There are standards in the law for when we decide to make changes. The court generally follows precedent, but there are times in which those standards, and according to a majority of the justices have been met and changes are made.

You’ve written some pretty forceful pointed dissents in some major cases to include a 29 page dissent sharply criticizing the ruling to reject affirmative action in college admissions. And you wrote that, “Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” And you also wrote that, “Time would reveal the effects.” We’re already getting our first look at the apparent impact. MIT, Amherst College, Tufts University report a significantly lower number of Black students this year as white enrollment increases. What do you think are the implications of that?

Well, I will leave it to your viewers to read my opinion. In my dissent, I talked about the gaps that have been created in our society over time and the fact that affirmative action was initially designed as a response to them. And so we’ll have to see what happens as a result of where we are now.

When you write a dissent, who do you envision as the audience? Is it the American public, the other justices, posterity?

All of the above. You really do try to speak to a wide variety of audiences. Because when you’re dissenting, obviously you have not been able to persuade your colleagues about your view of the issue. So to some extent, you are writing for the public so that they can understand the debate that the justices have had about the issue. And then you hope to be writing for posterity because you would hope that eventually your point of view would prevail.

The process of writing a memoir, I imagine, makes you think about your impact. It’s probably too early to talk about your legacy. But how do you want to shape the court moving forward?

Oh my goodness. Well, I would just like to do a good job. I mean, it’s pretty early to be thinking about how I’d change it or how I’d stamp it. Right now, I just want to do the best I can to serve the American people to the best of my ability.

Looking back at your career thus far, what are you proudest of?

Oh, there’s so many things to be proud of. I’ve talked about all of the various stages of my life in the book, and the people who contributed. I say in the preface, “No one reaches the highest of heights on their own.” And I really believe that. And so I think I’m proudest of the relationships that have sustained me to include my wonderful husband, without whom I don’t think any of this would’ve been possible. So I think it’s the relationships that I’ve been able to build and have been privileged to be a part of.

We got to see your parents during the confirmation process. What do they think of all this?

Oh my goodness. My parents are, I think, over-the-moon, happy and proud, and just probably couldn’t have imagined that this would happen.

Reading the book though, I think they could. I think they did imagine.

Maybe. Well, they certainly wanted something wonderful to happen and felt that it could and that’s why they invested so much. And I am most pleased that we were able to put everything down on paper and have such a tribute to them while they’re still with us.

The memoir is terrific.

Thank you.

Lovely One. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, thank you so much for speaking with me. I appreciate it.

Thank you so much.