The Honorable Dick Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley
Chairman Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510 Washington DC 20510
April 4, 2022
Subj: Opposition to Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court
Dear Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley:
The undersigned attorneys general and I write to express our opposition to the nomination
of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the United States Supreme Court because of her unconscionable
leniency toward criminals who possess, publish, and produce child pornography—or, more
accurately, images of child rape.
Judge Jackson hasn’t merely erred on the more forgiving end of a spectrum of available
punishments, as many judges sometimes do. Rather, during her decade-long tenure as a federal
district court judge, she repeatedly cast victims aside, elevated criminal defendants above them,
and sentenced the abusers well below the accepted federal guidelines. For example, in dozens of
child pornography cases, she imposed sentences that were anywhere from 15 to nearly 70 percent
less than what the prosecutor had requested.
In a March 20, 2022 letter addressed to you, several members of Congress rightly point out
that Judge Jackson has a “profoundly troubling pattern of leniency towards some of the most
disturbing crimes in our society.” Three particular instances showed “an unsettling history” of her
“sid[ing] with sexual predators”:
1. U.S. v. Hawkins, where Judge Jackson sentenced a man convicted of possessing child
pornography to three months when sentencing guidelines called for 10 years.
2. U.S. v. Stewart, where she sentenced a man convicted of possessing thousands of
images of child pornography, along with attempting to cross state lines to molest a 9-
year-old girl, to only 57 months when sentencing guidelines called for 97–121 months.
3. U.S. v. Chazin, where she sentenced the defendant to 28 months for possession of child
pornography when sentencing guidelines called for 78–97 months.
Her weakness toward the sexual exploitation of children is not new. Indeed, it stretches
back to her time as a law student. In a 1996 Harvard Law Review note, she argued that registration
and community-notification requirements for sex offenders were unfairly punitive toward
criminals, while failing to recognize those requirements’ protective value for communities. Judge
Jackson was determined not to “deprive[] the [sex] offender of his right to mobility or bodily
P os t Of fic e Box 12548 , Aust in, Texa s 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www. texa satto r neyg eneral .gov
integrity,” and warned of the risks that such “harsh” punishments would have on a community’s
“rejection, antipathy, and scorn” toward him. But this view undermines all the hard work that anti-
abuse advocates have made in recent years to refocus the conversation on victims—here, our
precious children, who are too often overlooked by people like Judge Jackson.
Later, during her work on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, she said that the “current
system of mandatory minimums” with respect to “[c]ertain non-contact sex offenses”—that is,
sharing images of child rape—“may be excessively severe.” It’s true that some victims of child
porn may not be contacted physically by their abusers. But in our technological age, the lack of
actual touch in some cases makes the crimes no less severe or appalling. And because the means
and methods of the crimes are digital, they live on forever, thus continually revictimizing children
into their adulthoods.
On one level, Judge Jackson’s alarming history as a judge and lawyer reflects a commitment
to being soft on crime that is completely out of touch with how Americans want our justice system
to treat child-sex criminals. But on deeper level, it suggests a disdain for the recommendation of
prosecutors and the political process—the voice of the People—which set minimum sentencing
guidelines and related statutes. What’s more, it’s an insult to the victims of child exploitation, who
are revictimized every time one of Judge Jackson’s prematurely released criminals views, copies,
shares, or talks about those images.
Judges should be cutting off the supply of porn that feeds these criminal monsters by being
tough on offenders. Instead, by being soft on them, Judge Jackson has made it more likely for images
of child rape to proliferate and thus made it easier for children to be sexualized, abused, and
exploited. Bottom line: child pornographers don’t deserve a break; they deserve to go to prison for
a very, very long time, and certainly much longer than Judge Jackson ever imposed.
President Biden has nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Justice Stephen Breyer
on our nation’s highest court. This isn’t merely swapping out one liberal for another. Rather, it’s
replacing an old-school progressive with a modern leftist who has demonstrated—in word and
deed—shocking leniency toward child pornographers. Based on her record, Judge Jackson’s
elevation to the Supreme Court would harm that institution, as well as children’s public safety
nationwide. The United States Senate should do its job and protect the American people from this
dangerous nominee.
For Liberty and Justice,
Ken Paxton
Attorney General of Texas
Leslie Rutledge Lawrence Wasden
Attorney General of Arkansas Attorney General of Idaho
Todd Rokita Jeff Landry
Attorney General of Indiana Attorney General of Louisiana
Eric Schmitt Austin Knudsen
Attorney General of Missouri Attorney General of Montana
John O’Connor Alan Wilson
Attorney General of Oklahoma Attorney General of South Carolina
Jason Ravnsborg
Attorney General of South Dakota
