According to WND, the conclusion stems from a report in The Federalist that examined data quietly circulated to select readers by the Wall Street Journal. The numbers are stark: Jackson opposed President Donald Trump’s policies and legal positions in 98 out of 100 major cases, making her the most consistently anti-Trump justice on the bench by a wide margin.
By contrast, the justices most frequently smeared as partisan for Trump—Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—sided with the Trump administration’s arguments 89% and 88% of the time, respectively. That alignment, while high, still falls short of Jackson’s near-automatic opposition, raising serious questions about who is truly driven by ideology rather than law.
TRUMP BETS BIG ON SERIAL CANDIDATE AS NATIONAL CONSERVATIVES INVADE BYRON DONALD'S FLORIDA DISTRICT
July 17, 2026
The Journal, as reported, initially framed the story around Alito, suggesting that “Alito’s record was the real story behind this data.” It noted that, “In a term dominated by Trump-related disputes, [Alito] voted to uphold every significant Trump initiative that came before the court, and he wrote frequent, full-throated endorsements of some of Trump’s most brazen efforts to expand presidential power.”
TOP DEMOCRAT MEGA-DONOR JUMPS SHIP TO BACK GOP’S BRUCE BLAKEMAN AGAINST HOCHUL
Yet the deeper takeaway from the compiled data is that Jackson’s record is so uniformly left-wing that it “sometimes even causes her to split with her left-wing counterparts on the court.” Her pattern of voting has placed her not merely on the liberal side of the spectrum, but often on an island of her own, pushing positions too extreme even for Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
NOW THE FIGHT OVER A TRANSGENDER MUSIC TEACHER IS SPIRALING INTO A FULL-BLOWN PARENTAL RIGHTS CLASH
On multiple occasions, Jackson has stood as the lone dissenter in otherwise unanimous or near-unanimous rulings, underscoring just how far she is willing to go in advancing progressive causes. These solo dissents highlight a justice who appears more interested in ideological signaling than in building consensus or respecting constitutional limits.
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S KEPT CONTROVERSIAL BLACKLIST OF FREEDOM CONVOY SYMPATHIZERS
One striking example came in Chiles v. Salazar earlier this year, a case involving Colorado’s attempt to restrict what therapists may say to patients questioning radical gender ideology. The Federalist reported that “in Chiles v. Salazar earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado cannot ban therapists from offering patients alternatives to pursuing radical ‘transgender’ ideology.”
LOS ANGELES' MAYORAL RACE JUST GOT CAUGHT IN A FAKE-POLL FARCE
The 8-1 majority, which included liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, held that Colorado’s recurring campaign against Christian beliefs violated therapists’ free-speech rights. Jackson, alone in dissent, would have allowed the state to impose its preferred orthodoxy on counselors, effectively granting government the power to dictate acceptable viewpoints in the counseling room.
WNBA FANS THREATENED WITH EXPULSION FOR SUPPORTING WOMEN'S SPORTS INTEGRITY
Jackson also stood alone when the court moved to issue its redistricting decision in Louisiana without delay. Her resistance to the court’s timing again placed her at odds not just with conservatives, but with colleagues on the left who recognized the need for prompt resolution.
MIKE ROGERS’ PATRIOTIC TRUCK BECOMES FLASHPOINT AFTER EL-SAYED STAFFER’S KKK REMARK
Even liberal observers have begun to express unease about Jackson’s approach. The New York Times has reported that Jackson is causing “worry” among fellow liberals Sotomayor and Kagan because of her extreme rhetoric and concerns that her statements may “dilute” the left’s influence on the court.
PROSECUTORS UNVEIL SHOCKING DETAILS OF PENN STATE FRAT HOUSE COCAINE-TRAFFICKING SCHEME
A report posted at Conservative News Daily captured the growing criticism from within her own ideological camp. It noted, “She is characterized as highly candid and sometimes conflict-prone, frequently enough authoring her own dissents, which has attracted criticism from fellow liberals. The analysis underscores the heightened partisanship and tension surrounding the court, with threats of violence and protests targeting justices following controversial decisions and leaks. Despite her claims of impartiality, Jackson’s voting record appears highly partisan, contrasting with her accusations against originalist justices of bias.”
JAMES TALARICO JUST PLUCKED A TOP CORNYN INSIDER FOR HIS SENATE PLAY
Those threats and tensions have overwhelmingly come from the left, not from conservatives who are routinely portrayed as the danger to “democracy.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, furious over decisions that did not align with progressive priorities, openly threatened two sitting justices, declaring, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
TRUMP EXPLODES OVER ‘IMPOSTER’ DAN SULLIVAN IN ALASKA RACE — WARNS VOTERS!
The climate has grown so toxic that in 2022 a man arrived at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home with the intent to murder him, while protesters have repeatedly targeted the residences of other conservative justices, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Against this backdrop, Jackson’s near-perfect record of opposition to Trump and her willingness to push the court’s left flank even further raise legitimate concerns for Americans who value judicial restraint, constitutional fidelity, and a Supreme Court that resists becoming just another arm of the progressive political machine.
