Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022. She is the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court and is known for her background in public defense, her experience as a federal judge, and her commitment to judicial independence and equal justice.

Born in Washington, D.C., in 1970 and raised in Miami, Florida, Jackson was a standout student and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1992. She then attended Harvard Law School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, earning her J.D. in 1996.

After law school, Jackson clerked for several judges, including Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1999–2000 term. Her clerkships, especially with Justice Breyer, were formative and instilled in her a pragmatic approach to the law that often emphasizes real-world consequences.

Jackson began her legal career in private practice at prestigious firms, but she soon shifted toward public service. She worked as an assistant special counsel on the U.S. Sentencing Commission before joining the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Washington, D.C., in 2005. There, she represented indigent criminal defendants—an experience that distinguished her from most federal judges and provided her with a rare perspective on the criminal justice system from the defense side.

In 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Jackson to serve as a Vice Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, where she helped shape policies to reduce sentencing disparities, especially those related to nonviolent drug offenses. Her work reflected a broader national conversation about criminal justice reform and showed her dedication to fairness in sentencing.

In 2012, President Obama nominated her to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Confirmed in 2013, Judge Jackson handled a wide range of civil and criminal cases. She became known for her detailed, well-reasoned opinions and her commitment to transparency and procedural fairness. Notably, she ruled in cases involving executive authority and government transparency, including a 2019 decision ordering former White House counsel Don McGahn to comply with a congressional subpoena—an opinion that emphasized the principle that “presidents are not kings.”

President Biden nominated Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2021, where she served for less than a year before being nominated to the Supreme Court following Justice Breyer’s retirement. Her confirmation process was historic and highly publicized. The Senate confirmed her in April 2022 by a 53–47 vote, with three Republicans joining all Democrats in support.

On the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson has quickly established herself as a strong and articulate voice, particularly in oral arguments. Her opinions often reflect a deep concern for civil rights, government accountability, and access to justice. As a former public defender, she brings a unique and underrepresented viewpoint to the Court, especially in criminal justice cases.
​
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s legal career is marked by public service, intellectual rigor, and a commitment to fairness and equality under the law. As a Supreme Court Justice, she is poised to play a significant role in shaping American jurisprudence for decades to come.

Shared with you by the Law Office of Devina Douglas

​The California Supreme Court’s April 30, 2026 decision in In re Kowalczyk represents a significant clarification—and tightening—of constitutional limits on cash bail in California. The ruling builds on earlier precedent, particularly In re Humphrey (2021), and directly addresses a widespread practice in trial courts: setting bail at amounts defendants cannot realistically afford, thereby creating de facto pretrial detention.

At its core, the case arose from the detention of Gerald Kowalczyk, a homeless man who was held on $75,000 bail after attempting to use a stolen credit card to purchase a $7 meal. Unable to pay, he remained incarcerated for six months before resolving his case. (Although his individual claim became technically moot, the California Supreme Court took up the case to resolve broader constitutional questions regarding bail practices.) 

The Court’s central holding is that, except in narrowly defined circumstances where detention is constitutionally authorized, bail must be set at a level that is “reasonably attainable” for the defendant. In other words, courts may not set bail at an amount they know a defendant cannot afford simply to ensure detention as doing so violates constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection, as well as California’s long-standing presumption in favor of pretrial release. 

A key legal issue in the case was the interaction between two provisions of the California Constitution. Article I, section 12 establishes a general right to bail, with limited exceptions (primarily for capital crimes or certain serious felonies involving threats of violence). Meanwhile, Article I, section 28—added by Proposition 9 (Marsy’s Law)—emphasizes that public and victim safety should be primary considerations in bail decisions. Lower courts had interpreted section 28 as expanding judicial authority to deny bail or impose high bail for public safety reasons.

The Supreme Court rejected that expansive interpretation. It held that section 12 provides the exclusive circumstances under which bail may be denied in noncapital cases, and that section 28 does not broaden those categories. Instead, section 28 must be harmonized with section 12, meaning public safety considerations can inform bail decisions, but cannot justify detention outside the constitutionally specified exceptions. 

This clarification has major practical consequences. First, it limits judges’ ability to use high bail as a workaround for preventive detention. If a defendant does not fall within the constitutional categories permitting denial of bail, the court must either release the individual (with or without conditions) or set bail at an amount the defendant can realistically meet. 

Second, the decision reinforces that wealth-based detention is unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that pretrial detention cannot be based solely on a person’s inability to pay. This principle echoes Humphrey but goes further by explicitly rejecting the practice—still common in many counties—of setting unaffordable bail amounts in routine cases. 

Third, the ruling encourages greater use of non-monetary conditions of release. Courts retain the authority to address public safety and flight risk, but must do so through less restrictive means where possible, such as supervised release, electronic monitoring, or other tailored conditions. The decision thus shifts the focus from financial conditions to individualized risk assessment. Importantly, the Court did not eliminate cash bail or require that bail always be affordable in a subjective sense. Judges are not required to accept unsupported claims of indigency, and they may still deny bail altogether—but only when the case fits within the constitutional exceptions (e.g., serious violent felonies with clear public safety risks). 
​
The broader impact of Kowalczyk is likely substantial. Legal observers expect it to affect thousands of cases by constraining judicial discretion and standardizing bail practices across California. It also signals the Court’s continued commitment to reducing wealth-based disparities in the criminal justice system, even after voters rejected a 2020 ballot initiative that would have abolished cash bail entirely.

In sum, In re Kowalczyk does not abolish cash bail, but it sharply limits how it can be used. The decision establishes that unaffordable bail is, in most cases, unconstitutional; that the right to pretrial release remains the default; and that public safety concerns must be addressed within, not beyond, the constitutional framework governing bail.