What is going on with Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson?
In the middle of oral arguments Tuesday, she asked a question that was irrelevant for the key issue at hand, and that had clearly been answered less than an hour before she asked it.
Was she lying, just stalling for time, or did she simply pay no attention to the testimony before her very eyes?
The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involves Maryland parents of various faith backgrounds—Christian, Jewish, and Muslim—asking the court for a temporary injunction, allowing them to opt their kids out of instruction using LGBTQ books that Montgomery County Public Schools has mandated schools teach.
Early on in the oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas asked Eric Baxter, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty attorney representing the parents, whether the books are “just there” or “are they actually being taught out of the books.”
“We know that the teachers are required to use the books,” Baxter replied. “When the books were first introduced in August of 2022, the board suggested they be used five times before the end of the year.”
He noted that one of the schools said teachers would read one book each day during Pride Month. “The board’s own testimony, through [Chief Academic Officer Nikki] Hazel, said that the books must be used as part of the instruction,” he added.
“That was the entire point of withdrawing the opt-outs and removing even notifying parents,” Baxter said. “The board said, in that statement, it was so that every student would be taught from the inclusivity story books.”
None of this was a secret. Baxter cited evidence—transcripts and exhibits submitted to the court—demonstrating that teaching the books was a requirement.
My colleagues and I at The Daily Signal have been reporting on this case for years, and it has always been clear that Montgomery County Public Schools required teachers to use the books in class.
So, what did Justice Jackson ask?
She noted that the parents are seeking a preliminary injunction—a court order forcing the school district to allow parents to opt their kids out of the LGBTQ book lessons.
In order to get an injunction, Jackson explained, “you actually have to have a factual record that is the basis for the court to make a determination in your favor that some conduct that you’re complaining about needs to be enjoined. And what’s confusing to me and hard—really hard—in this situation, is that we have a lot of sincerely held beliefs and concerns and children and principles, and I see all of those things and so really want to be careful about making the pronouncement.”
“I don’t understand how we can do it on this record, because we can’t know—we don’t, at this moment, based on the record you’ve provided, know—that these books aren’t just sitting on the shelves,” the Supreme Court justice said (emphasis added).
Baxter, naturally, tried to set the record straight.
“I disagree, your honor,” he said. “The record is undisputed, and I again will refer you to district court transcript…”
Jackson cut him off, asking if he thought the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to write, “We don’t have any information about how any teacher or school employee has actually used any of the books.”
Baxter replied that “the Court of Appeals did not dispute that some of the books have to be used, and we have all of…”
Jackson, again cutting him off, said the appeals court ruled “that we don’t know ‘what any child has been taught in conjunction with their use.’” She then proceeded to badger Baxter, asking, “So, are you saying that you do have affidavits and information about teachers in the classroom and what they’ve taught children of different ages about these books?”
“Yes, we do,” he replied. “All of our clients have, in their declarations, they describe which books were going to be read to their children.”
She cut him off a third time, asking, “Were the clients in the classroom?”
After admitting that the parents were not in the classroom, Baxter added, “We don’t have to wait until the injury has happened to get relief.”
That is the key point here, and why Jackson’s question is a classic red herring distraction from the main argument.
The school district requiring the instruction of LGBTQ books, without a possibility for parents to opt their kids out of the instruction, represents a forced indoctrination into stances on sexuality that conflict with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim tradition—at young ages. The same district allows an opt-out for sexuality instruction, but claims that the LGBTQ books are exempt because they will be taught as literature.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty submitted evidence that some Montgomery County Public Schools teachers had indeed taught from some of the books in class. Even if they hadn’t, Jackson’s question would still be immaterial—the issue is that the policy requires teachers to use them in class, without the opportunity for kids to opt out. The policy, unless it is enjoined, threatens to cause irreparable harm by indoctrinating kids away from their family’s faith.
By bringing up the issue of books remaining on the shelves—and by dismissing “sincerely held beliefs and concerns and children and principles”—Jackson suggests that the parents’ concerns are illegitimate.
Perhaps Jackson and the other liberal justices on the court are trying to obscure the issue because they agree with the school board, which accused the parents of using their religious beliefs to justify hate.
Such accusations aren’t exactly new. As left-leaning teachers pushed gender ideology and critical race theory in schools in 2021, parents increasingly spoke out. When Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education organized to represent this growing movement, the Southern Poverty Law Center put them on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan to demonize them into silence.
When parents complain about sexually explicit material in school libraries, the SPLC and its allies accuse them of trying to “ban books.”
Jackson’s red herring echoes that argument. The key issue, in both cases, is an attempt to push sexual indoctrination that is unfit for children and violates their families’ religious faith. This isn’t a matter of supporting or opposing books or basic literacy—it’s a controversy about the Left using sex to drive a wedge between parents and children, at ever earlier ages.
When I posted the video of Ketanji Brown Jackson on X, many users commented that Baxter made the Supreme Court justice look dumb. I agree—but I don’t think the issue is Jackson’s intelligence. I think she was twisting herself in knots to deny the obvious indoctrination at the heart of this case, and Baxter wasn’t letting her get away with it.
