Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's recent dissent in a Supreme Court case has raised eyebrows—not for its legal reasoning, but for her unusual admission. She acknowledges that her own argument might fuel a misleading "perception" about the Court, even though she believes that perception is incorrect. It’s a rare moment of self-awareness in a dissent, but one that leaves observers wondering why she’d amplify a narrative she disagrees with.

Editor’s Note: Supreme Court dissents are often fiery, but they’re rarely this introspective. Jackson’s remarks highlight the delicate balance justices strike between expressing disagreement and avoiding unintended consequences. For Court watchers, it’s a fascinating glimpse into how justices grapple with public perception—even when they think it’s wrong.

The Supreme Court is racing to wrap up its current term with 10 major cases still undecided—one of which could challenge the long-standing principle of birthright citizenship. Meanwhile, the court has been bogged down by a flurry of emergency appeals from the Trump administration, as lower courts keep throwing roadblocks in front of the president’s aggressive push to reshape federal policies.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just bureaucratic noise—these rulings could redefine key aspects of American governance and civil rights. Birthright citizenship, for example, is a foundational issue that touches immigration, identity, and the Constitution itself. And with the court juggling so many high-stakes cases at once, the next few weeks could reshape laws in ways that stick for decades.