Loading record
Public disputes concerning sentencing, incarceration, prison conditions, probation and parole, reentry, and the policies and institutions that govern how the criminal justice system treats people who are charged, convicted or formerly incarcerated.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
2 statements on this page. Dates: June 26, 2024 to June 29, 2026
2 matching statements. Dates: June 26, 2024 to June 29, 2026
2 published statements. Dates: June 26, 2024 to June 29, 2026
2 published statements. Dates: June 26, 2024 to June 29, 2026
2 statements on this page. Dates: June 26, 2024 to June 29, 2026
Role at the time: U.S. Supreme Court justice, in a concurrence joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Statement summary
Jackson argued that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
“I write separately because I would have gone further to explain that this search violated the Fourth Amendment.”
Jackson's concurrence, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, addresses the constitutional defects she finds in the second and third stages of the geofence search.
Relative to the government's access to Location History, Jackson both rejects the no-search position and expressly criticizes this search as unconstitutional.
Role at the time: Supreme Court justice dissenting, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan
Statement summary
Jackson says the Court elevates federalism concerns she calls nonexistent over the statute's text.
“The Court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute”
The Court holds that Section 666 covers bribes but not gratuities for past acts. Jackson's dissent argues that corrupt rewards fall within the statute.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)The case concerns the Court's decision to exclude gratuities from Section 666. Jackson rejects that decision and argues that it overrides Congress's text and intent.
