Just The Stats: Ketanji Brown Jackson As A District Court Judge – Above the Law

This
post
has
a
bevy
of
statistics
related
to
Judge
Jackson’s
decisions
as
a
judge
on
the
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
which
helps
paint
a
picture
of
the
cases
Judge
Jackson
decided,
the
people
involved,
and
how
her
decisions
fared
on
appeal. 

Some
aggregate
statistics
and
other
information
on
Judge
Jackson’s
background
in
law
can
be
found
on
her


questionnaire
for
nominee
to
the
Supreme
Court. 

According
to
her
questionnaire,
Judge
Jackson
authored
578
“opinions,
dispositive
orders,
and
orders
affecting
injunctive
relief”
while
on
the
district
court,
along
with
two
opinions
as
a
judge
on
the
D.C.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals. 
Most
of
these
opinions
can
be
found
in
a


database
compiled

for
a
previous
post. 

Judge
Jackson
was
on
the
District
Court
for
D.C.
from
March
2013
through
June
2021.
The
breakdown
of
the
opinions
she
authored
per
year
based
on
the
database
looks
as
follows:

In
2014
Judge
Jackson
authored
the
most
opinions
with
92,
while
she
authored
the
fewest
opinions
of
years
where
she
was
on
the
Court
for
the
full
year
in
2019
with
48.  

Like
most
district
court
judges,
Judge
Jackson’s
cases
dealt
mainly
with
individuals
in
civil
and
criminal
contexts.

The
minimum
number
of
cases
per
party
type
in
this
graph
was
three.
Since
Judge
Jackson
sat
on
the
District
Court
for
D.C.,
which
is
the
court
of
first
impression
for
most
agency
related
cases,
many
of
her
cases
related
to
executive
agencies
including
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
Social
Security,
and
the
Department
of
Justice.
The
District
of
Columbia
was
also
a
party
in
many
of
Judge
Jackson’s
cases
(under
the
heading
“State”),
as
were
corporations,
the
United
States,
and
unions.

Much
variation
exists
in
the
case
topics
Judge
Jackson
decided
as
is
shown
below. 

Topics
are
shown
above
if
there
were
at
least
two
cases
per
topic.
The
most
common
areas
were
cases
dealing
with
employment
issues,
followed
by
document
requests
(through
FOIA),
executive
agency
related
cases,
and
cases
dealing
with
constitutional
violations.

An
example
of
an
employment
related
case
is


Crawford
v.
Johnson. 
In
that
case
James
Crawford
complained
that
he
was
discriminated
against,
had
a
hostile
work
environment,
and
was
retaliated
against
for
engaging
in
a
protected
activity
while
working
for
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
Many
of
the
other
employment
cases
also
dealt
with
complaints
from
individuals
working
in
the
federal
government. 

One
way
to
distinguish
between
the
cases
Judge
Jackson
decided
is
by
the
number
of
citations
to
them.
Below
is
a
list
of
the
number
of
citations
to
Judge
Jackson’s
opinions
in
instances
where
there
were
at
least
20
cites
to
them.

The
case
with
the
most
citations
is


United
States
v.
Lee

with
125.
This
was
a
criminal
case
decided
in
2020
where
Hartley
James
Lee
was
indicted
for
unlawful
possession
of
a
firearm
as
a
convicted
felon,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
§
922(g).
Much
of
the
case
was
described
early
in
Judge
Jackson’s
opinion:

“Lee
argues
that,
‘[w]hen
[he]
was
initially
detained,
circumstances
were
different’
(Def.’s
Mot.
at
5),
and
that,
now,
‘[t]he
close
contact
and
conditions
of
incarceration
are
unsafe
in
light
of
the
[COVID-19]
global
pandemic
…
[and]
pose
a
substantial
risk
of
serious
illness
and
possible
death’
(id.
at
2).
Lee’s
motion
further
contends
that,
‘[u]nder
these
unique
circumstances,
the
Court
must
release
Mr.
Lee,
at
least
until
the
resolution
of
this
case.’
(Id.;
see
also
Def.’s
Reply
at
4.)”

In
this
case
Judge
Jackson
ruled
that
“
…
the
generalized
risks
posed
by
the
COVID-19
pandemic
do
not
alter
the
individualized
balance
of
the
statutory
factors
that
Congress
prescribed
for
determining
the
propriety
of
the
defendant’s
detention
in
this
particular
case,
and
the
Court
is
also
not
persuaded
that
the
generalized
risk
of
contracting
COVID-19,
without
more,
constitutes
a
‘compelling
reason’
for
Lee’s
temporary
release
at
this
time.”

The
case
with
the
second
most
cites
is


Si
v.
Laogai
Research
Foundation

with
74. 
This
was
a
case
brought
under
the
False
Claims
Act
challenging
business
practices
related
to
the
misuse
of
federal
grant
funding.
While
most
of
the
counts
were
dismissed,
Judge
Jackson
held
that
the
pleading
standards
for
a
retaliation
claim
were
met
and
so
that
plaintiff
could
proceed
on
that
count.

The
only
case
decided
by
Justice
Jackson
that
was
later
taken
en
banc
was


American
Meat
Institute
v.
Department
of
Agriculture.
This
case
was
brought
by
meat
industry
trade
associations
against
the
Department
of
Agriculture
challenging
country
of
origin
labelling
for
certain
products.
Judge
Jackson’s
opinion
was
affirmed
by
the
D.C.
Circuit
panel
and
was
affirmed
once
again
by
the
D.C.
Circuit
en
banc.

Many
of
Judge
Jackson’s
decisions
like
the
one
in


American
Meat
Institute

case
were
later
appealed. 
The
vast
majority
of
these
decisions
were
affirmed
as
is
shown
below.

Only
eight
of
Judge
Jackson’s
opinions
were
reversed,
three
were
vacated,
and
five
were
either
affirmed
and
reversed
in
part
or
affirmed
and
vacated
in
part.

These
data
can
be
broken
down
more
granularly
to
look
at
the
directions
the
D.C.
Circuit
Judges
voted
in
these
appeals.

Judge
Henderson
voted
in
the
most
cases
decided
by
Judge
Jackson
in
the
court
below.
He
affirmed
the
most
decisions
of
any
judge
with
15
affirming
votes,
had
the
most
reversal
votes
with
three
(Judges
Edwards
and
Griffith
also
voted
to
reverse
in
three
instances),
and
voted
to
vacate
the
most
decisions
also
with
three.

Another
judge
worth
focusing
on
is
Judge
Jackson’s
potential
future
colleague
on
the
Supreme
Court,
Justice
Kavanaugh.

While
on
the
D.C.
Circuit,
Justice
Kavanaugh
voted
to
reverse
two
of
Judge
Jackson’s
opinions
or
18%
of
the
cases
Judge
Jackson
ruled
on
that
Justice
Kavanaugh
later
helped
decide
on
appeal.
Justice
Kavanaugh
also
authored
both
of
these
reversals.

The
first
appeal
reversing
Judge
Jackson’s
decision
was
in


Limnia,
Inc.
v.
U.S.
Dep’t
of
Energy.
This
case
dealt
with
Department
of
Energy
grants
for
loan
applications
from
Limnia
which
is
an
electric
car
company.

Judge
Jackson
decided
to
remand
the
case
back
to
the
Department
of
Energy
which
previously
rejected
Limnia’s
loan
applications.
Justice
Kavanaugh’s
opinion
determined
that
the
remand
was
improper,
and
the
case
should
be
decided
by
the
District
Court
for
D.C.
rather
than
the
Department
of
Energy.

The
second
reversal
came
in


Von
Kahl
v.
Bureau
of
Nat’l
Affairs,
Inc. This
case
was
based
on
defendant
Von
Kahl’s
conviction
for
the
murder
of
two
U.S.
Marshals
and
later
petition
for
mandamus.
After
the
petition,
the
Bureau
of
National
Affairs
reported
that
aspects
of
the
comments
made
in
the
court
below
came
from
the
sentencing
judge
when
in
fact
they
were
made
by
the
prosecutor. 

Von
Kahl
sued
the
Bureau
for
defamation.
Judge
Jackson
reasoned
that
the
defamation
claim
could
overcome
the
motion
for
summary
judgment
due
to
the
inaccuracy
in
the
Bureau’s
report.

On
appeal
though
Justice
Kavanaugh
(then
Judge
Kavanaugh)
along
with
Judges
Rogers
and
Wilkins
decided
that
Judge
Jackson
should
have
granted
the
Bureau’s
motion
for
summary
judgment
and
so
they
remanded
the
case
back
to
the
District
Court
for
D.C.
with
those
instructions.

It
will
be
interesting
to
see
the
differences
(and
possibly
similarities)
in
Judge
Jackson
and
Justice
Kavanaugh’s
jurisprudence
if
Judge
Jackson
is
confirmed
to
the
Court,
as
well
as
how
Judge
Jackson
fits
alongside
the
other
justices.
Once
again,
you
can
find
more


data
on
all
of
Judge
Jackson’s
decisions
as
well
as
links
to
these
decisions
here.