Ever wonder if the Supreme Court justices kick back and relax behind closed doors, trading robes for casual banter?
Think again, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently revealed the surprisingly rigid customs of the nation’s highest court during a speech to the Indianapolis Bar Association on July 10, 2025.
The Daily Caller reported that during an address to a crowd of legal professionals, Jackson shared her initial shock at the Court’s unyielding formality, a far cry from the laid-back vibe one might imagine among such intellectual heavyweights.
“I think I didn’t realize how formal the Court is,” she admitted. But let’s be honest—shouldn’t a body deciding the fate of our laws carry a certain gravitas, not a coffee-shop vibe?
Jackson, who once clerked for Justice Stephen G. Breyer, thought her prior experience would prepare her for the Court’s inner workings.
Yet, even she was caught off guard by the strict protocols governing their private interactions. It’s almost as if the justices are preserving a sacred tradition—something conservatives might argue is worth defending in an era obsessed with tearing down norms.
From speaking and voting strictly by seniority to shaking hands before every bench session or conference, the rituals are as non-negotiable as a constitutional amendment.
“We shake each others’ hands every time,” Jackson noted. While some might scoff at such old-school etiquette, isn’t there value in maintaining decorum in a world increasingly casual about everything?
These customs, while “interesting and neat” as Jackson described, underscore a Court that operates with a deliberate sense of order. One has to wonder if this structure helps balance the ideological battles that often play out in their rulings. Perhaps a little formality is the glue holding such diverse minds together.
During her first term, Jackson didn’t just adapt to the Court’s formalities—she made her presence felt, loudly. Data from Dr. Adam Feldman shows she spoke over twice as much as any colleague during oral arguments, clocking in at 11,003 words compared to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s 5,484.
That’s not just participation; that’s a verbal takeover, raising eyebrows about whether quantity matches quality in such a hallowed space. While some might view this as a breath of fresh air, others could see it as a disruption of the Court’s traditionally measured tone.
Is Jackson’s vocal assertiveness a sign of passion for justice, or does it risk overshadowing the collaborative nature of the bench? Conservatives might argue that restraint, not volume, often carries the day in serious debate.
Still, her willingness to speak up reflects a confidence that can’t be ignored, especially in a role where every word is scrutinized. It’s a reminder that the Court isn’t just about dusty traditions—it’s a battleground of ideas, even if fought with handshakes and seniority rules.
Jackson also peeled back the curtain on how dissents are handled among the Court’s liberal-leaning justices, often assigned by seniority through Justice Sotomayor.
But Jackson isn’t afraid to chart her own path when she feels strongly about an issue. “I’m not afraid to use my voice,” she declared, a statement that could be read as refreshing or, to some, a tad self-focused for a team-oriented institution.
In her dissent in Trump v. CASA, Inc., she didn’t hold back, using dramatic flair to critique the majority’s stance on universal injunctions by district courts. “Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . the district courts,” she wrote with a theatrical jab. While clever, such language might strike conservatives as more performative than persuasive, especially when clarity, not theatrics, should rule judicial writing.
Her choice to write separate dissents when an issue hits close to home shows a dedication to personal conviction over groupthink. Yet, in a Court already polarized, does this individualism deepen divides rather than bridge them? It’s a question worth pondering as we watch her tenure unfold.
Jackson’s insights paint a picture of a Court steeped in tradition yet challenged by modern voices eager to be heard. Her surprise at the formalities, paired with her assertive presence, suggests a tension between preserving the institution’s legacy and pushing its boundaries.
For conservatives, this might signal a need to guard the Court’s sanctity against progressive overreach, even if delivered with a polite handshake.