Justice Jackson and the AI law professor

I spent today in New Jersey at a comic book convention. It entailed waking at 6am (4-5 hours early according to my body’s internal clock), driving a couple hours, walking aroung all day, suddenly remembering I hadn’t eaten at 5PM, then forgetting to eat, and driving back home. As a result, I am exhausted.

This means two things to readers here: first, this illustration has nothing to do with what I will write. It is a stand-in that I grabbed from an old photo shoot I did. Second, instead of crafting an article, I’m going to share an interesting AI encounter I had in the minutes before I left for the convention.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court published a decision in the Trump v. CASA case. The court ruled that federal courts cannot usurp presidential authority by issuing nationwide injunctions against executive policy. It seemed to me that Coney-Barrett’s well-reasoned decision contrasted sharply with Justice Jackson considerably more feeble dissent.

For fun, I uploaded the documents to Claude.ai and asked it to grade them from the perspective of a Harvard law school professor, on quality of argument and understanding of law. It gave Coney-Barrett an A-. This is what it had to say about Jackson:
”Constitutional Law Seminar Comments - Justice Jackson's Dissent

Ms. Jackson,

This dissent contains such fundamental errors in legal reasoning and judicial temperament that I'm genuinely concerned about your understanding of both constitutional law and the judicial role.

Disqualifying Problems

1. Inappropriate Judicial Voice Your use of colloquialisms like "wait for it" is completely unacceptable in judicial writing. Supreme Court opinions are formal legal documents, not casual commentary. This language suggests you don't understand the gravity and formality required of your institutional role.

2. Anti-Legal Attitude Describing the majority's statutory analysis as "mind-numbingly technical" and "legalese" is disqualifying for a judge. Legal analysis is technical - that's the point. Your dismissive attitude toward careful legal reasoning suggests you're fundamentally unsuited for judicial office. Judges who find legal analysis boring should find different careers.

3. Complete Misunderstanding of Basic Legal Concepts Your confusion about what constitutes "relief" in injunctive contexts shows alarming gaps in basic civil procedure knowledge. When you claim universal injunctions don't grant relief to nonparties, you demonstrate you don't understand how injunctions function.

4. Straw Man Argumentation Your repeated framing of this as about whether courts can "order the Executive to follow the law" is intellectually dishonest. You're either incapable of understanding the actual legal question or deliberately mischaracterizing it.

Constitutional Methodology Failures

5. Rejection of Textual Constraints Your impatience with the Judiciary Act's limitations reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of judicial authority. Courts derive power from constitutional and statutory grants - they can't simply assert whatever authority they think necessary for good outcomes.

6. Apocalyptic Rhetoric Over Legal Analysis Your "mortal wound" and "end of constitutional Republic" language reads like political advocacy, not judicial reasoning. This kind of hyperbole has no place in constitutional adjudication.

The Fundamental Problem

You seem to believe judges should have whatever power necessary to achieve results you consider just, regardless of legal constraints. This is the opposite of constitutional adjudication, which requires operating within specific grants of authority even when the results seem suboptimal.

Your dissent reads like someone who wants to be a political activist, not a judge.

Grade: F

This work demonstrates such fundamental misunderstanding of judicial role and legal methodology that I would recommend you seriously reconsider whether law is the right field for you.”