(Daily Caller News Foundation) – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s solo dissents directing sharp words at the Supreme Court’s majority may indicate she’s veering further left than even the other Democrat-appointed justices.

Both on paper and in public appearances, Jackson is increasingly making doomsday pronouncements about the country’s state while her opinions attract rebukes from colleagues.

A solo dissent Tuesday opposing President Donald Trump’s efforts to downsize the federal workforce failed to gain support even from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who noted the administration’s actual plans were not yet before the court. Jackson asked her colleagues to “consider the harms to democracy” if it turns out the challengers to Trump’s executive order are right, slamming the decision of the other eight as “hubristic and senseless.”

“I think Justice Jackson might be alienating her colleagues on the left,” South Texas College of Law Houston professor Josh Blackman suggested Wednesday during a panel at the Heritage Foundation. “I see a shift in Jackson from before Trump to after Trump.”

Justice Elena Kagan chose not to side with Sotomayor and Jackson when they dissented from the majority’s order clarifying a district court judge must follow the Supreme Court’s prior ruling on deportations. “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed,” she wrote July 3.

After the Supreme Court limited lower court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, Jackson penned a 21-page dissent lamenting the majority’s decision as an “existential threat to the rule of law.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in her majority opinion — which every other conservative justices signed — that Jackson’s position “would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Jackson was least frequently in the majority during the 2024-2025 term, joining 72% of the time, according to SCOTUSblog. Yet Kagan was in the majority 83% of the time, more than Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Sotomayor, who all came in at 78%.

In the 2023-2024 term, Jackson was still in the majority 72% of the time, but Sotomayor and Kagan were in the majority less frequently, at 71%, per data compiled by Adam Feldman and Jake Truscott.

‘How I Feel About The Issues’

During remarks Tuesday at the Global Black Economic Forum’s ESSENCE Festival, she told ABC News’ Linsey Davis that the nice part about being on the court is getting to “express” her opinions.

“I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people, in my opinions, how I feel about the issues,” she told ABC News Live Prime anchor Linsey Davis. “And that’s what I try to do.”

Her statement sparked questions about whether she fundamentally misunderstands her role as a judge.

“Someone should tell Justice Jackson that her job is to uphold the law and defend the Constitution, not share how she ‘feels’ about specific issues brought before the Supreme Court,” JCN President Carrie Severino wrote on X.

Jackson’s view can become a “slippery slope where opinions become more like judicial op-eds,” George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley noted.

“The Court is not a cable show,” he wrote.

While she only wrote five majority opinions, Jackson wrote more than 20 concurring and dissenting opinions during the past term, according to The NYT.

Dissenting from the majority’s decision allowing oil companies to challenge California’s electric vehicle regulations, she expressed concern the decision would make the Supreme Court appear too sympathetic to “moneyed interests.”

“I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,” she wrote in her dissent.

Sotomayor voted with Jackson, but did not sign her opinion. Kagan sided with the conservative justices.

Yet she still could come to an agreement in some significant cases: Jackson authored a unanimous decision finding members of majority groups do not have to meet a higher standard to prove a discrimination claim.

Jackson has written concurring opinions at a higher rate than any member of the court since 1937, according to an analysis by professors Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin and Michael J. Nelson.

Jackson’s musings on democracy and her relationships with other justices dominated headlines coming out of appearances this week to promote her book, Lovely One: A Memoir.

Jackson said the “state of our democracy” keeps her up at night during remarks in Indianapolis on Thursday, according to CNN. She noted she is “not afraid to use” her voice, even if another justice has already written an opinion.

“I will say, forgive me, Justice Sotomayor, but I need to write on this case, and it’s because I feel like I might have something to offer and something to add,” Jackson said.

Echoing her opinions, she also suggested on Tuesday that recent rulings by the majority pose an “existential threat to the rule of law.”

Jackson makes her views known during oral arguments too, speaking far more than any other justice, at 76,116 words for the 2024-2025 term, according to Empirical Scotus. Sotomayor spoke the second most, coming in at 50,028 words.

Jackson said Tuesday she finds it “funny” how much people focus on the amount she talks during oral arguments.

“It’s been a bit of an adjustment because as a trial court judge, you have your own courtroom so you can go on as long as you want,” she said, according to ABC News. “So, trying to make sure that my colleagues get to ask some questions has been a challenge for me, but I’ve enjoyed it.”