Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s remarks during Louisiana v. Callais have ignited a firestorm — and for good reason. In the middle of oral arguments over whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) remains constitutional, Jackson appeared to draw a striking — and highly controversial — comparison: likening black American voters to individuals with physical disabilities.
Let’s be clear about what’s at stake. This case hinges on whether Louisiana’s congressional map, which includes two majority-black districts, violates the Equal Protection Clause or improperly relies on race to the point of being unconstitutional.
In other words, it asks a critical question: Is the state being forced to racially gerrymander, not because of discriminatory intent, but because of a perceived statistical imbalance?
That’s where Jackson’s comments come in.
In trying to defend race-based redistricting without evidence of discriminatory intent, Jackson invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She argued that, just as buildings must be made accessible for disabled individuals regardless of whether the builder intended to exclude them, so too must voting systems be adjusted for black Americans if the system in effect leads to disproportionate outcomes. The analogy wasn’t subtle. In her own words, black Americans are “disabled” in their access to the voting system.
Let that sink in.
The first black woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court used disability — literal, legal, and physical disability — as a framework for understanding race and voting power. That’s not a legal slip. It’s a revealing moment in how modern racial legal theory has drifted from tangible harm and clear intent to vague “systemic” disadvantage — one that no longer requires proof of discrimination, just disparity.
Ketanji Brown Jackson literally and directly compares black people not electing their preferred candidates to disabled people not being able to enter buildings
“They don’t have equal access to the voting system. They’re disabled.” pic.twitter.com/aCJXeBwHTl
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 15, 2025
Jackson cited Milliken v. Bradley to support her view, but that case — which dealt with school desegregation — is far from a blank check for race-based remedies. And when attorney Edward Greim pushed back, pointing out that the ADA does not rely on stereotyping entire groups to determine who gets special treatment, Jackson didn’t retreat. Instead, she doubled down — effectively suggesting that if race-based assumptions are necessary to equalize outcomes, so be it.
But Greim hit the core issue: using race to remedy statistical disparities, without any evidence of intentional discrimination, requires exactly the kind of racial stereotyping that the Constitution is supposed to guard against. It assumes that black voters must think and vote alike. It flattens individuality in favor of group identity. And it demands a remedy based not on personal injury, but on collective grievance.
