Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is encountering calls for impeachment after her appearance and behavior at the Grammy Awards, igniting nationwide discussions about judicial ethics, the appropriate limits of public engagements, and how personal conduct intersects with professional responsibilities, raising questions about accountability, precedent, and the role of Supreme Court justices in public life.

Senator Marsha Blackburn has called for a formal inquiry into Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson following Jackson’s attendance at the Grammy Awards. The controversy stems from political remarks made by performers criticizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the ceremony.

Jackson was nominated for her memoir, Lovely One, in the Best Audio Book, Narration, and Storytelling Recording category. While the nomination itself drew little criticism, Blackburn argued that attending a politically charged event could raise concerns about judicial impartiality.

On social media, Blackburn emphasized that the Supreme Court must remain “impartial and above political influence.” She suggested that Jackson’s visible reactions during moments of criticism toward ICE created troubling optics for a sitting justice.

Blackburn also sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts requesting a “thorough investigation.” The letter cited instances of performers wearing protest pins and making anti-ICE statements, arguing that Jackson’s presence could affect public confidence in the Court.

Conservative commentators, including Alex Marlow, echoed these concerns, framing the appearance as potentially undermining decorum. They argued that trust in the judiciary depends not only on rulings but also on conduct in public settings.

Blackburn compared the situation to prior ethics debates involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, where critics raised concerns about travel disclosures and recusal decisions. She contends Jackson’s case centers more on perception than direct conflicts of interest.

At issue is the principle that justices must avoid both actual bias and the appearance of bias. Even cultural appearances, critics argue, can become politically charged in today’s climate.

Supporters counter that Jackson has the right to attend events recognizing her professional achievements. The debate underscores broader tensions about how Supreme Court justices balance public life, cultural engagement, and the expectation of judicial neutrality.