menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

KBJ Just Blasted Amy Coney Barrett’s “Contempt” for Congress

11 0
11.06.2026

This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Keep up with all of our Supreme Court coverage and analysis by signing up for weekly email roundups. The best way to support our work—and unlock exclusive legal analysis—is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)

One of the Supreme Court’s most quietly destructive projects of late is its refusal to let Americans vindicate the rights that Congress has tried to give them. In a 6–3 decision on Thursday, the Republican-appointed justices continued that crusade, weakening a statute designed to protect investors by preventing them from suing when certain funds break the law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s wooden majority opinion dismissed the notion that Congress intended to let injured parties sue under the statute—even though lawmakers unambiguously stated that they wanted courts to recognize such a right. In a stinging dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of harboring outright “contempt” for Congress and undermining democracy by elevating its policy preferences above those of our elected representatives.

In this week’s Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the ruling, FS Credit v. Saba Capital, and the fierce debate it ignited between Barrett and Jackson. A preview of their conversation, below, has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dahlia Lithwick: This seems like a very technical case, but that 6–3 split signifies a lot. What did the court decide?

Mark Joseph Stern: This case is yet another example of the Republican-appointed justices narrowing a federal law in ways that prevent parties from vindicating the rights Congress tried to give them. That’s a move the supermajority loves to make to undermine statutes that they don’t really like. We saw it just last term in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, when the supermajority said Medicaid recipients can’t sue when they’re denied the provider of their choice. And........

© Slate