The Supreme Court is currently hearing a challenge to a law in Hawaii prohibiting the carrying of handguns on private property that is open to the public. We're not sure if we're getting this straight, but that's not unusual, because we're talking about oral arguments from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson doesn't seem to think that it's relevant that the Black Codes were inherently unconstitutional at their inception, and are part of the history and tradition of the United States. Yeah, we don't get it.
Things I didn’t have on my bingo card today: Justice Jackson defending the racist Black Codes as precedent for what we should consider constitutional. pic.twitter.com/I9yxcMsDrf
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) January 20, 2026
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris’s response to Justice Gorsuch’s question on the relevance of the Black Codes was spot on:
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) January 20, 2026
“It is 2026, and it is somewhat astonishing that Black Codes, which are unconstitutional, are being offered as evidence of what our tradition… pic.twitter.com/Xt9Bg7HY0K
… of constitutionally permissible firearm regulation looks like.”
Astonishingly, it's Jackson arguing this. Fortunately, Justice Samuel Alito was there to point out the irony.
Must Listen: Justice Alito reveals the obvious irony of citing the Black Codes as justification for Hawaii’s 2023 firearm restriction law.
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) January 20, 2026
“They wanted to disarm the Black population in order to help the Klan terrorize them...they wanted to put them at the mercy of racist law… pic.twitter.com/GHerQmmM7C
… enforcement officers. So is it not the height of irony to cite a law that was enacted for exactly the purpose of preventing someone from exercising the Second Amendment right, to cite this as an example of what the Second Amendment protects.”
She's not very bright, is she?
Ketanji Jackson appears to argue that because an unconstitutional law was for a time on the books that it can be used as precedent? Am I grasping this correctly, because that’s just loony.
— AnnaZ (@AnnaZ) January 20, 2026
Justice Jackson evidently thinks laws are only unconstitutional for as long as they are recognized as such. How is this woman a Supreme Court justice?
— Samantha Flom 🇺🇸 (@SamanthaFlom) January 20, 2026
It's constitutional until the Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional. Are we doing this right?
OK, but I bet you did have on your bingo card KBJ saying, "I don't really understand..."
— Don Wolt (@tlowdon) January 20, 2026
Oh what a colossal blunder confirming Jackson.
— Sandy 〽️ (@RightSandy) January 20, 2026
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 20, 2026
She likes to hear herself talk. No one else appears to like it.
— Jack Lee 🎰 (@JLee2028) January 20, 2026
She is 55. We will get to listen to this amazing mental giant for 30 years...
— Lamar Settlemires 🇺🇸 (@TheSettlemires) January 20, 2026
The infamous Dred Scott decision was also once deemed constitutional. It's hard to believe, but Justice Jackson manages to embarrass herself more with each passing month.
— Damian Ranger (@DamianRanger1) January 20, 2026
It always sounds like she’s asking her professor for help.
— Joe (@Joe_in_NJ) January 20, 2026
I'm absolutely certain that she really never intended to be the guardian of the Constitution of the United States when she accepted this position. She has to see every single, solitary sentence through partisan political lenses.
— Frank McDonough (@MediaGeek62) January 20, 2026
Is she really this ignorant?
— MAGA-Listless Vessel (@charliekulyrwah) January 20, 2026
CW historian here. At first I didn’t believe you. Then I listened. The Black Codes Constitutional? And argued from the standpoint of “the history and traditions of the country?” If Jackson had sat on the Nuremberg court, Herman Goering might have been found innocent.
— Richard F Miller. (@NoFollo92476663) January 20, 2026
The Black Codes were "deemed unconstitutional" later does not trump or override the fact that they were unconstitutional. I'm no lawyer, but I know that it is cannon that an unconstitutional act is void from its inception, irrespective of when it is struck down.
— Rick White (@RealTexasRick) January 20, 2026
We're not lawyers (well, Aaron Walker is), but that's our understanding. An unconstitutional law isn't to be cited as legal precedent because it hasn't yet been declared unconstitutional.
Our heads hurt.
***