Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sat down with former first lady Michelle Obama for more than an hour on Obama's "IMO" podcast to discuss the importance of judicial neutrality, and critics immediately pointed out the contradiction.
Jackson, a Biden appointee, used the appearance to describe the lengths she goes to avoid even the appearance of bias. She told Obama she has every invitation screened by the Supreme Court's legal office and public information office to check for ethical conflicts and confirm an event is not a fundraiser. She said court employees are dedicated to "assisting us in that way."
The problem, as conservative commentators were quick to note, is the venue she chose to deliver that message. Obama is one of the most prominent Democratic figures in the country. Her podcast is not a neutral platform. And Jackson's extended appearance on it while lecturing about impartiality struck many observers as a case study in the gap between what the justice says and what she does.
Obama asked Jackson directly how she manages potential conflicts and avoids bias in her media consumption and public exposure. Fox News Digital reported Jackson's response at length:
"There are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that because, as you say, our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach."
Jackson went further, explaining that she must "navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid." She added that "there are lots of things that I end up not accepting for that reason."
But she accepted this one. She sat for more than an hour with the wife of a former Democratic president, on a podcast branded with Obama's personal opinions, and used the time to assure the public she takes neutrality seriously. Whatever the court's legal office flagged or cleared, the optics were self-inflicted.
Reactions came fast. Turning Point USA contributor John Amanchukwu wrote that Jackson "discusses the importance of being neutral while she is sitting on Michelle Obama's podcast set." Conservative influencer Patricia Foster was blunter: "She doesn't really expect anyone to believe that, does she?"
Commentator DeVory Darkins called the appearance impossible to reconcile with Jackson's stated principles:
"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can't be real. She says it is important to be neutral as a Supreme Court justice........while she is literally on MAJOR leftist Michelle Obama's podcast. We ALL know how impartial she is."
Harris Rigby, a columnist for the Babylon Bee's non-satirical site "Not the Bee," wrote that "there isn't a strong enough word for the irony in this video clip." Rigby described Jackson as "the most public, loud-mouthed, self-assured judge in the history of the United States" who now "wants to lecture us about the dignity of the courts."
Fox News Digital reached out to both Obama and the Supreme Court for comment. No response was reported.
That silence is worth noting. Jackson described a careful, institutionalized process for vetting her public appearances, legal office review, public information office sign-off, conflict checks. If that process approved an hour-long sit-down on a partisan podcast, it raises a fair question about what the screening is actually designed to catch. A fundraiser, apparently. A former first lady's personal media platform, apparently not.
Jackson told Obama she tries to be "very, very mindful." Mindful is a word that does a lot of work while committing to very little. The justice may well believe she approached the appearance with scrupulous care. But impartiality is not just an internal disposition. It is a public standard, one that depends on how conduct looks to the people whose cases the court decides.
Sitting across from Michelle Obama for an hour and explaining how seriously you take neutrality does not meet that standard. It contradicts it.
When a Supreme Court justice has to tell you she is impartial, pay attention to where she chose to say it.
