Sen. Marsha Blackburn is calling on Chief Justice John Roberts to investigate whether Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compromised her impartiality by attending the Grammy Awards — an evening that devolved into an open political rally against federal immigration enforcement.
Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, sent a letter to Roberts on Thursday requesting what she described as "a thorough investigation" into Jackson's presence at the ceremony, where multiple award winners used the stage to attack Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Jackson sat in the audience throughout.
According to The Hill, she wasn't there as a casual observer. Jackson was nominated in the Best Audio Book, Narration and Storytelling Recording category for her memoir "Lovely One." She lost to the Dalai Lama. But the real story isn't the nomination — it's what unfolded around her while she occupied that seat.
Bad Bunny, accepting the album of the year, opened not with gratitude but with a political statement:
"Before I say thanks to God, I'm going to say ICE out."
Billie Eilish, accepting song of the year, was less subtle:
"f‑‑‑ ICE"
She followed that up on stage with another declaration:
"no one is illegal on stolen land"
Artists and celebrities throughout the evening wore "ICE out" pins. The ceremony wasn't a music awards show that happened to include a political moment. It was a political demonstration that happened to hand out trophies.
And a sitting Supreme Court justice was in the crowd for all of it.
Blackburn's letter zeroed in on the standard that governs judicial conduct — specifically, the obligation that a Supreme Court justice "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Her argument is straightforward: immigration cases will come before the Court. A justice who attended what amounted to an anti-enforcement political event has, at a minimum, created an appearance problem.
In her letter to Roberts, Blackburn wrote:
"For the following reasons, I urge you to conduct a thorough investigation into Justice Jackson's attendance at this event and whether her presence at such an event complies with the obligation that a Supreme Court justice 'act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'"
She also catalogued the rhetoric of the evening:
"These statements were just two of many polarized, highly charged anti-law enforcement sentiments from that evening. It is important to note that Justice Jackson was present in the audience throughout the event."
On social platform X, Blackburn framed the stakes more broadly:
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that is impartial and above political influence. When a Justice participates in such a highly politicized event, it raises ethical questions. We need an investigation into Justice Jackson's ability to remain impartial."
This is where the left's prior arguments come back to bite. Democrats spent years demanding that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito recuse themselves from cases based on far thinner threads. Thomas accepted trips from billionaire Harlan Crow, disclosed them, and denied any wrongdoing — and Democrats treated it as a constitutional crisis. Alito faced recusal demands over flags connected to the "Stop the Steal" effort that flew outside his home. Alito rejected those calls, saying he had "an obligation to sit" for the cases in question.
Those episodes consumed news cycles. They generated congressional hearings, op-eds, and breathless cable coverage about the integrity of the Court.
Now, a justice attends a ceremony where performers use acceptance speeches to curse out a federal law enforcement agency — an agency currently executing the administration's immigration enforcement priorities — and the question of impartiality is somehow less urgent?
Blackburn drew the comparison explicitly:
"Unlike these meritless claims against Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, there are serious questions regarding Justice Jackson's participation in such a brazenly political, anti-law enforcement event and her ability to remain an impartial member of the Supreme Court."
The left established the standard. They insisted that proximity to political signals — a flag, a vacation, a friendship — created disqualifying conflicts for conservative justices. By their own logic, Jackson sitting through hours of coordinated anti-ICE messaging while immigration enforcement is among the most contested legal issues in the country should trigger every alarm they ever wired.
It won't, of course. The rules were never meant to apply evenly.
The broader spectacle deserves its own scrutiny. The Grammys transformed into a venue for wealthy entertainers to rail against the enforcement of immigration law, at a moment when two U.S. citizens had been shot and killed in Minneapolis during federal immigration enforcement operations, escalating tensions between state and local officials in Minnesota and the Trump administration.
Eilish's claim that "no one is illegal on stolen land" received a sharp response from Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri, who said the singer should forfeit her award "and probably her mansion, which, I guess, is on stolen land, too." The observation cuts to the core of the performative nature of these statements — moral grandstanding from people insulated from the consequences of the policies they champion.
Kevin O'Leary, the "Shark Tank" entrepreneur, offered Fox News a blunter assessment:
"It's the first lesson 101 for celebrity: as you rise up, whether you're a film star, a music star [or] whatever, shut your mouth and just entertain."
Eilish's brother and collaborator Finneas O'Connell came to her defense, saying her statement left "a lot of very powerful old white men outraged." The reflexive retreat to racial grievance when facing criticism tells you everything about how seriously these arguments should be taken on the merits.
Chief Justice Roberts has not responded to Blackburn's letter, and no formal investigation has been announced. Whether Roberts acts on the request remains an open question. The Court has historically guarded its internal discipline — or lack thereof — from congressional pressure.
But the political reality is already set. Democrats built the recusal-industrial complex. They insisted that the appearance of bias was itself disqualifying. They argued that justices must be held to a standard not just of actual impartiality, but of perceived impartiality — that the public's confidence in the Court demanded nothing less.
Justice Jackson sat in the audience of a nationally televised political protest against federal law enforcement. She didn't wander into it. She was nominated for an award. She chose to be there.
By the left's own rules, the investigation should have started before Blackburn's letter hit Roberts's desk.