Justice Jackson's Broadway Performance Stirs Controversy Over Court's Impartiality

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s participation in a Broadway musical performance has raised concerns among legal experts about potential conflicts of interest.

Jackson’s one-time performance in the Broadway production & Juliet, featuring LGBTQ+ themes, has sparked debate over whether it compromises the impartiality expected from a Supreme Court justice, particularly as the court considers a case concerning transgender rights for minors.

Justice Jackson made history on Saturday night as the first Supreme Court justice to perform on Broadway. She took the stage in & Juliet, a musical at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre in New York, where she portrayed a character in the production's LGBTQ+ themed storyline. The show, which debuted on Broadway in November 2022, reimagines the tragic ending of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, with Juliet choosing a life of empowerment instead of following her love to death.

The character of May in & Juliet is nonbinary, and the musical includes a queer relationship as a central part of its narrative. These themes have been at the heart of the production, which was written by David West Read, known for his work on Schitt’s Creek. Jackson’s participation came as part of a special performance, described by the show’s marketing team as fulfilling a lifelong dream for her to perform on a Broadway stage.

During the performance, Jackson wore a blue corset, jeans, and a flowery hat, delivering lines such as “Female empowerment, sick!” and performing the Backstreet Boys’ hit "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely." Her appearance was met with excitement from the audience, but her involvement in such a politically charged production has not gone unnoticed by critics.

Concerns Over Impartiality

Legal experts, including Thomas Jipping, senior legal counsel at the Heritage Foundation, have criticized Jackson’s involvement, arguing that it might compromise the neutrality of the judiciary. Jipping, who is an advocate for judicial ethics, called Jackson’s participation in the advocacy-heavy production a "huge mistake." He explained that a justice should not engage in activities that clearly support ideological positions on issues that may soon come before the court.

“It’s unusual for judges to do this sort of thing under any circumstances,” Jipping said. “But I suppose if this was Romeo and Juliet, if this was some recognized, established classic or something, it might be different. But this is obviously an advocacy production.”

The Heritage Foundation's senior counsel emphasized that the stakes are high for maintaining the appearance of impartiality, especially when the court is considering important cases related to transgender rights. This includes the ongoing case of U.S. v. Skrmetti, which could influence legal decisions about transgender minors’ access to medical treatments, school bathrooms, and sports participation. The case has already generated significant public debate.

Ethical Implications of Justice Jackson’s Involvement

Jipping stressed that Jackson’s performance in a production focused on LGBTQ+ rights raises concerns, particularly given the current climate surrounding the Supreme Court. “Participating in an advocacy, in an exercise of advocacy, for a position on issues that come before the Supreme Court is an egregious violation of that principle in the code of conduct regarding impartiality,” he said.

Critics of the Supreme Court's ethical standards have been vocal in recent years, pointing out several controversies surrounding conservative justices. These included Justice Clarence Thomas’s ties to political activism and Justice Samuel Alito’s lavish trips funded by wealthy donors. Jackson’s Broadway performance, coming amid these ongoing critiques, has only fueled concerns over the court's public image and ethical guidelines.

Historical Context of Justices Engaging in the Arts

While Jackson's performance is unprecedented for a sitting Supreme Court justice, it is not the first instance of justices participating in the arts. In 1994, Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared in a non-speaking role in a Washington National Opera production. However, critics have pointed out that such engagements are rare and that they typically do not involve politically charged advocacy in the way & Juliet does.

The Public Debate Over Judicial Ethics

The debate surrounding Jackson’s performance comes at a time when both liberals and conservatives have called for more stringent ethical oversight of the Supreme Court. Liberal lawmakers, in particular, have advocated for a more enforceable code of conduct to address potential conflicts of interest among justices.

Jipping questioned whether these concerns would be raised with equal vigor when it comes to Jackson’s Broadway appearance. “Liberals in Congress want an enforceable code of conduct. I wonder what they say about this,” he remarked.

Jackson’s performance in & Juliet also draws attention to the broader issues of judicial ethics and how actions outside the courtroom can affect the public’s perception of the judiciary. Some believe that justices should maintain a distance from political or advocacy-driven actions to preserve the court’s perceived neutrality.

Looking Ahead to Upcoming Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court is expected to continue hearing arguments in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case in January 2025, with a decision likely by July 2025. As the court grapples with this case and others related to LGBTQ+ rights, the conversation surrounding justices' involvement in politically charged activities will likely continue to evolve.

While Jackson’s Broadway appearance has sparked controversy, it underscores the larger issue of how the public views the actions of those in the nation’s highest court. As the justices continue to navigate their roles, their actions outside the courtroom may become an increasing point of debate.

A Call for Judicial Prudence

Jipping concluded with a direct call for caution: “She should stay on her side of the bench, and judges should protect their impartiality and the appearance of impartiality more, not less. And this, this was really reckless, in my view.”

As Jackson’s performance continues to make waves, the issue of judicial ethics remains a critical topic for public discourse, especially as the nation waits for key decisions that could impact the rights of transgender individuals across the country.