Supreme Court Nominee Jackson Called Pro-Lifers "Hostile, Noisy," "In-Your-Face" in Case ACLJ Also Filed Amicus Brief Defending Pro-Life Speech

President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson has given little indication of how she feels on the issue of life in her confirmation hearings at the Senate, but she was crystal clear in a prior amicus brief that she wrote in 2001 when she used this type of rhetoric about pro-lifers in an abortion buffer zone case:

Few American citizens who seek to exercise constitutionally protected rights must run a gauntlet through a hostile, noisy crowd of “in-your-face” protestors.

ACLJ Senior Counsel CeCe Heil explained what this language means:

The language is very specific. The fact that they use “hostile, noisy crowd of in-your-face protestors.” There is a way to make that point without using that degrading type of language, you know, that pro-life women are these hostile, out-of-control people. Instead of, I am a pro-life woman, and I choose to treat people in love and kindness. So, you can’t group me into this crowd, which is what they are trying to do.

Judge Jackson tried to walk around this rhetoric from her brief during the line of questioning at the confirmation hearing with Senator Marsha Blackburn (TN). When Sen. Blackburn asked her how she justifies that type of degrading rhetoric against pro-life women, Judge Jackson responded:

I was an associate at a law firm, and I had appellate experience and in the context of my law firm, I was asked to work on a brief concerning a buffer zone issue in Massachusetts at the time. There were laws protecting women who wanted to enter clinics and there was a First Amendment question about the degree to which there had to be room around them to enter the clinic.

Sen. Blackburn reiterated her question and asked Judge Jackson if she looks at pro-life women in the way she previously described in the brief as “hostile, noisy, and in-your-face.” To which she replied:

Senator, that was a statement in a brief made – an argument for my client. It is not the way I think of or characterize people.

To be clear, that is still the view she chose to use to advocate on behalf of her client. We don’t share that view. The ACLJ filed an amicus brief opposing Judge Jackson’s brief back in 2001.

In our brief we directly contested the view of Jackson who was counsel for amici in that case:

This statute is silent concerning prohibition of harassment, violence, obstruction or any of the other purposes described by the Defendants and their amici in their briefs. This fact alone counters over ninety percent of what Defendants and their amici have to say in their briefs. This statute is an example of Draconian overkill. Pro-life speech, counseling to women seeking abortion, is being bludgeoned by this legislation, not merely burdened. No other movement for civil rights has been treated in such a harsh, Orwellian manner by the State. The mere uttering of words opposing abortion constitutes a grave crime which, under the statute, can result in the imprisonment of the speaker. Speech, not conduct is prosecuted. Leafleting, displaying a sign, oral protest and counseling are forbidden.

In fact, in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY struck down a similar Massachusetts anti-pro-life speech buffer zone law in McCullen v. Coakley, a case we also filed an amicus brief in. That means that every Justice, including retiring Justice Breyer who Judge Jackson would replace on the court, took a completely different view of these anti-free speech laws than she did.

But the issue of banning pro-life speech around abortion clinics didn’t stop there. We are still in court over cases exactly like this right now. ACLJ Senior Counsel Frank Manion joined Sekulow to discuss where our cases on this issue are at right now:

You can imagine how my ears perked up when I heard about this exchange yesterday in the hearings, since for weeks . . . we have been buried in the McCullen case, and the Massachusetts buffer zone case for a long time now. And we just tried a case in federal court in New Jersey a month ago today . . . involving these issues. We’ve got another case in Louisville, Kentucky. . . . So, we are up to our necks in buffer zone issues, so it is honestly a little concerning to hear a nominee take that kind of position where she describes basically our clients as hostile, aggressive, and in-your-face. That is concerning, because we don’t know where she would come down in an actual case, but it does seem to be different than the approach taken by all nine Justices in the McCullen case, including the most liberal members of the Court.

This is going to be extremely important as the Supreme Court is deciding the most monumental pro-life case in decades, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, that could overturn Roe v. Wade. The American people deserve to know where Judge Jackson stands on an issue as important as the life of the unborn, because if confirmed, she will rule on these kinds of cases in the future.

Today’s full Sekulow broadcast is complete with even more analysis of Judge Jackson’s confirmation hearings and her view on pro-lifers.

Watch the full broadcast below.