Justice Jackson’s role in ‘queer’ Broadway show ‘really reckless’ as court weighs trans case: legal expert

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recent appearance in the Broadway musical “& Juliet” has sparked controversy and raised questions about her impartiality as the court considers a landmark case on banning transgender surgical procedures for minors.

Critics, including Heritage Foundation senior legal counsel Thomas Jipping, have expressed concerns about Jackson’s participation in the musical, which features prominent LGBTQ+ themes and nonbinary characters. Jipping argued that judges, especially Supreme Court justices, should avoid engaging in activities that could be seen as endorsing specific ideological positions on issues that may come before the court. He emphasized the importance of upholding the appearance of impartiality to maintain public trust in the judiciary.

“& Juliet” reimagines Shakespeare’s classic love story with a twist, where Juliet challenges traditional gender roles and forges her own path instead of succumbing to a tragic fate. The musical explores themes of female empowerment and queer relationships, with characters like Juliet’s nonbinary best friend, May, playing a central role in the storyline.

Jackson joined the Broadway cast for a one-time performance, making history as the first Supreme Court justice to perform on Broadway. The musical, written by David West Read, has been praised for its humorous take on the timeless tale of love and self-discovery. However, Jackson’s involvement has raised eyebrows due to the advocacy nature of the production and its potential implications on her judicial role.

Criticism over judicial impartiality is not new, with conservative justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh facing scrutiny for various ethical concerns. Liberals have called for stricter oversight and enforceable codes of conduct to ensure judges’ adherence to principles of impartiality and ethical behavior.

While Jackson’s cameo role may have fulfilled a personal dream of appearing on a Broadway stage, some experts believe that judges should prioritize protecting their impartiality and avoiding activities that could compromise public trust in the judiciary. Jipping described Jackson’s participation in an advocacy-driven production as a “reckless” move that could undermine the court’s credibility.

Despite the controversy, this isn’t the first instance of Supreme Court justices dabbling in the performing arts. Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously appeared in a Washington National Opera production in 1994, showcasing their shared love of opera despite their ideological differences.

As the Supreme Court deliberates on the U.S. v. Skrmetti case, which could have far-reaching implications for transgender rights, the spotlight remains on the justices’ ability to uphold impartiality and fairness in their decision-making. The court’s upcoming ruling is expected to shape future legal battles on transgender issues, highlighting the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary.