Freshman Katanji Brown Jackson scolds senior colleagues after court deals with routine police stop case

KBJ still doesn't know if she's a woman

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a woman who isn't certain what a woman is because she isn't a biologist, accused the Supreme Court majority on Monday of overstepping its role to "wordsmith" a lower court in Washington, D.C. in a pointed break from her colleagues in a Fourth Amendment case about whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a man. 

Jackson, a Biden autopen appointee and the least senior of all justices, was the only one to defend the D.C. appeals court, which had found last year that the officer improperly stopped the man while he was in a vehicle. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, approving the police stop because common sense prevailed.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee and the high court's most senior liberal justice, also broke with the majority but declined to join Jackson's dissent, further isolating Jackson as an outlier even among the liberal justices.

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized that police officers have the broad ability to rely on a "totality of the circumstances" when making stops, noting that sometimes seemingly trivial standalone facts about a situation can be combined with more suspicious behavior to justify reasonable suspicion for a police stop or arrest. You know, like seeing two African men in MAGA hats, holding a hangman's noose at 2 a.m. on a sub-freezing day on a Chicago looking suspicious near a Subway Restaurant, for example.

But Jackson argued against what she said was the high court's intervention in a lower court's routine evaluation of which facts are relevant and which are not. "I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound [sic] determination warranted correction by this Court," D.E.I. Jackson wrote.

The case arose from a 2023 dispatch call to Washington, D.C., police at 2 a.m. reporting a suspicious vehicle. When an officer arrived on scene, two people ran from the car while the remaining passenger slowly began backing out of the parking lot with a door still open. The D.C. attorney general's office argued on behalf of police that this "totality" of facts amounted to reasonable suspicion to stop the person who remained in the car.

The Supreme Court’s unsigned per curiam opinion [Latin for "by the court" -- is a judicial decision issued by an appellate court, e.g., US Supreme Court of a federal/state appeals court, that isn't attributed to any specific individual judge or justice as the author. Instead, it is presented as the opinion of the court as a whole (or the panel of judges who heard the case)], said the lower court improperly ignored that two people fled the vehicle before the third person was stopped by an officer. 

Jackson said the D.C. appeals court had done basic "culling" of facts to reach its conclusion that the stop was unwarranted.

"Under these circumstances, with only seconds to decide whether to intervene, the officer was entirely justified in detaining the driver," lawyers for the police argued. They added that "within moments of stopping the driver, the officer observed a smashed window and punched-out ignition, confirming that the vehicle had been stolen."

While Jackson has become known for aggressively supporting court intervention in broader constitutional fights involving presidential power, in this case, her dissent emphasized a need for judicial restraint. Jackson argued that the lower court properly considered the Fourth Amendment, which says people have a right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." 

She said the case was not worthy of taking the "unusual step of summary reversal." But what does she know? She doesn't even know what a woman is.

"I am not sure why our Court sees fit to intervene in this case, let alone to do so summarily," Jackson said. "If the intervention reflects a worry that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (DCCA) misunderstands the Fourth Amendment’s totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, that worry seems unfounded."

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. If you really want to help support my work here, you can Buy Me A Coffee or click on the ads alongside this page--it really helps. You can even subscribe to Brain Flushings--it's free.

Tweet

Brown University Shooting: Person of Interest Nabbed, But the Ivy League Admin Fumble is Priceless

Look, folks, in the wee hours of Sunday morning, Providence officials finally had some good news after that horrific shooting at Brown University the day before.

"Effective immediately, we are lifting the shelter in place for Brown and the related area."Mayor Brett Smiley, trying to sound reassuring at an early presser, announced they'd detained a "person of interest" in the attack that turned an economics exam review session into a nightmare.

"We are able to report that we have detained a person of interest involved in yesterday’s shooting," Smiley said. "Colonel Perez will speak in a minute about that update. Second, I want to let the Providence community know that effective immediately, we are lifting the shelter in place for Brown and the related area."

"The people of Providence should breathe a little easier this morning," he added, because nothing says "relax" like a masked gunman bursting into a classroom and opening fire. Police Chief Colonel Oscar Perez chimed in, confirming the detainee is in their 30s (or 20s—details are a bit fuzzy there), and they're not hunting anyone else right now. Sparse on specifics, as usual.

The whole mess went down during a review for an econ class, with the shooter storming in and unloading.

But the real head-scratcher was Brown President Christina Paxson catching flak on Saturday for being completely in the dark, six full hours after the shots rang out, about what exactly was happening in that classroom.

Paxson admitted she'd been in D.C. when it happened and hopped a flight back ASAP. "I'm just catching up," she said.

Then came the grilling: "President, with all due respect, SIX HOURS after the shooting, you don't know what was going on in that classroom? How does that happen? Were they taking an exam? Were they meeting for a club?"

"I don’t know,” Paxson replied, looking bewitched, bothered and bewildered. "Six hours later. You're the president. You don't know?" the reporter pressed, incredulous. "I do not know," Paxson repeated.

"That’s kind of concerning," the reporter noted.

No kidding. In the age of instant everything, the head of an elite Ivy can't get a basic update on a mass shooting on her own campus for half a day? That's the kind of leadership that makes you wonder if they're too busy with DEI seminars to handle actual crises.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. Imagine, you could be the first on your block to do that and your friends will thank you . . . for some reason.

In the aftermath, Brown scrapped all final exams, poof, gone. Students were told to pack up, head home, and prioritize "safety and well-being." "For the moment, we encourage everyone to focus on their own safety and well-being," the provost said.

Hey, at least the kids get a pass on finals. Silver lining in a tragedy, I suppose. But seriously, prayers for the victims and their families, this shouldn't happen anywhere, let alone on a college campus.

Tweet

UCLA Med School sued for racial discrimination: aka racism

UCLA’s medical school is in a hot mess, and it’s about time. A federal class-action lawsuit just dropped, accusing the school and its officials of thumbing their noses at both California law and a Supreme Court ruling by using race as a factor in admissions. Racism much?

That’s right—despite affirmative action being illegal in the Golden State since 1996 and getting the boot nationwide in 2023, UCLA’s allegedly been playing fast and loose with racial preferences. And the evidence is overwhelming.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in California’s Central District federal court, comes courtesy of Do No Harm, a group founded in 2022 to squash affirmative action in medicine. Students for Fair Admissions, the folks who took down Harvard’s race-based admissions at the Supreme Court, and Kelly Mahoney, a college grad who got the cold shoulder from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, worked to stop the medical school and UCLA officials from “engaging in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity in the admissions process.” 

Good luck finding a clearer case of alleged wrongdoing and what one might consider to be racism where one group of folks with immutable characteristics is favored over another group, usually White people, particularly White men.

This mess kicked into high gear last year when the Washington Free Beacon blew the lid off UCLA’s admissions practices. The report zeroed in on Jennifer Lucero, the dean of admissions, who is accused of prioritizing race over merit. Things got spicy during a 2021 admissions meeting when a Black applicant with grades and test scores “far below the UCLA average” came up for review. Some committee members dared to question if this candidate was cut out for a top-tier medical school. Lucero’s response? She lost her excrement.

“Did you not know African-American women are dying at a higher rate than everybody else?” Lucero reportedly snapped at an admissions officer. The candidate’s subpar scores were irrelevant to the discussion. 

“We need people like this in the medical school,” she insisted. Translation: Forget qualifications, it’s all about the agenda.

California banned affirmative action in admissions nearly three decades ago, and the Supreme Court doubled down in 2023. This kind of race-based decision-making is supposed to be dead and buried, but under Lucero's watch, starting in 2020, it’s allegedly been business as usual. 

The results have been catastrophic. 

UCLA’s medical school plummeted from 6th to 18th in U.S. News & World Report’s rankings for medical research within three years of Lucero’s hiring. In some cohorts she admitted, over 50 percent of students flunked standardized tests in emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. We’re talking future doctors who can’t hack the basics in medical intervention.

Naturally, it gets worse. 

One professor recounted a student in the operating room who couldn’t identify a major artery when asked, then had the gall to berate the professor for calling her out. Another said students finishing clinical rotations were clueless about basic lab tests and, in some cases, couldn’t even present patients properly. This is what happens when you ditch merit for quotas.

Lucero, who moonlights as the vice chair for equity, diversity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) in UCLA’s anesthesiology department, allegedly led the charge to lower the bar for Black and Latino applicants while demanding near-perfect scores from Whites and Asians. One admissions committee member put it bluntly: The bar for underrepresented minorities is “as low as you could possibly imagine.” After all, who needs competency and grades when you have diversity, yadda yadda.

Here’s the kicker: Lucero’s too slick to openly admit it’s about race. Instead, she reportedly used proxies like zip codes to achieve the same discriminatory results. Sneaky, but not sneaky enough. The Free Beacon’s bombshell last May sparked an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in March 2025. 

HHS’s Office of Civil Rights is now digging into whether Lucero’s admissions office holds Black and Hispanic applicants to a lower standard than their White and Asian peers. “HHS will not tolerate informal admissions practices and institutional policies that promote racial discrimination at HHS-funded institutions,” the agency told the outlet. “This investigation reflects the Administration’s commitment to honor the hard work, excellence, and individual achievement of all students and not just those of particular racial backgrounds.” 

By lowering requirements for any group of people clearly implies that they are considered to be inferior to those one expects the highest standards. This is what might be called 'quiet racism.'

But wait, there’s more. Just days before the lawsuit hit, The Free Beacon dropped another bombshell: UCLA is still doing it and thus is breaking the law.

On April 8, the medical school circulated a memo outlining “guiding principles for student representation on the admissions committee,” which includes third- and fourth-year medical students alongside faculty. The guidelines mandate considering race when picking student admissions officers. “The Chairs of the [admissions committee] will review all submitted recommendations to ensure representation from those who identify as BIPOC and LGBTQ+,” the memo reads, according to a screenshot obtained by The Free Beacon.

 

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call. 

 
Legal experts are floored. “Putting in writing, while under federal investigation for discrimination, that your faculty will ‘review’ the proposed slate of students included in a program ‘to ensure representation from those who identify as BIPOC and LBGTQ+’ is astonishingly brazen,” said Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project. “You have to wonder how it’s possible for no one either in the administration or with its outside counsel to even roughly read either the law or the room.” 

Let’s cut to the chase: This is as clear-cut as it gets. California law and federal law both say race-based admissions are illegal. UCLA’s medical school, led by Lucero, is allegedly flouting both while producing doctors who can’t pass basic tests or identify arteries and might even pass out at the sign of blood, for all we know.

The lawsuit needs to deliver a wake-up call—fire Lucero, recommit to merit, and stop this discriminatory nonsense. If not, UCLA’s not just failing its students; it’s failing every patient who’ll one day depend on them. Stay tuned, because this fight’s just getting started.

Tweet

Oh those early days of Trump, Hemingway style

Trump protects Secret Service personnel in Butler, PA

In those early days, the White House held a silence heavy with lessons yet unlearned. The second term of President Donald Trump brought clarity, like the crisp edge of dawn. The choice of good governance stood in stark contrast to the shadow of the previous four years, marked by the Biden regime's reluctance to act decisively.

Trump, always consumed by the border's dust and heat, showed his intent swiftly. Orders swept through Washington on that chill January 20, 2025, reversing Biden's open-hand approach. The numbers spoke loud in the desert wind: illegal crossings plummeted.

“Border Patrol recorded just 582 illegal crossings at the southern border yesterday, with not a single one of the nine sectors hitting 200. I’ve never seen anything this low in all of my border coverage,” Fox’s Bill Melugin reported. “The numbers were already flat/low in Biden’s final week, bouncing between 1200-1400 illegal crossings daily, but the numbers have been falling off a cliff since Trump took office.”

Of the young ones lost to the bureaucracy of Health and Human Services, 75,000 found their way back from the shadows.

Biden once claimed, "I've done all I can do. Just give me the power. Give me the border patrol. Give me the people. The judges. Give me the people who can stop this and make it work right." But in truth, what he craved was a grand pardon clothed in border security, aiming to swell Democratic ranks for ages untold.

Yet in a mere handful of mornings under Trump's command, the charade was unmasked. Biden and his echo chamber in Capitol halls had claimed Congress must “do its job,” proclaiming helplessness. But it was all a fiction, a grand deception. Meanwhile, criminal shadows slipped through the cracks, a silent wound in the homeland.

Trump also took the chisel to wasteful spending. Freezing funds for vain exertions -- those entwined with Diversity, Equity, Inclusion -- demanded federal workers return to the office or lose their shirts.

Action pierced the silence, a startling contrast.

For Democrats, governing meant feeding their beast -- a misappropriation of time and resource for ideological whims. Government, a means to cleanse currency for what private hands would never sustain. Left flank radicals captured apparatus and funds, pouring them into woke causes that sought to unravel the frame of America. But Trump stripped this away, reminding those who cast their lot with him that the choice had been just and true.

The first two weeks of President Donald Trump’s second term in the White House have taught us a number of things, with no doubt many lessons are still to come.

The most glaring after just 11 days is that good governance is a choice and one former President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party refused to make over the past four years.

Trump’s top issue, illegal immigration, gives us a number of examples of how.

Since Trump signed a number of executive orders on January 20, 2025, reversing Biden’s open border policies, illegal crossings have cratered.

“Border Patrol recorded just 582 illegal crossings at the southern border yesterday, with not a single one of the nine sectors hitting 200. I’ve never seen anything this low in all of my border coverage,” Fox News Bill Melugin recently posted on X. “The numbers were already flat/low in Biden’s final week, bouncing between 1200-1400 illegal crossings daily, but the numbers have been falling off a cliff since Trump took office.”

On the same topic, of the 300,000 children who were brought illegally into the country and lost by the Department of Health and Human Services, 75,000 have been located.

"I've done all I can do. Just give me the power. Give me the border patrol. Give me the people. The judges. Give me the people who can stop this and make it work right," Biden claimed in January 2024.

What Biden really wanted was a mass amnesty bill disguised as border security legislation to pass, with a goal of codifying Democratic political power for generations to come.

The results from just two weeks of the Trump administration and leadership from the President prove Biden’s repeated claims, which were echoed by his White House press secretary and Democrats on Capitol Hill, that Congress needed to “do its job” and that there was “nothing he could do,” were totally bogus. In fact, it was a big lie and one that inflicted harm on the country with an influx of violent criminal aliens.

Moving onto government spending, Trump sent the left into a panic this week when he froze funds for unnecessary and counterproductive projects – from Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs to forcing federal employees back to the office if they want to keep their jobs.

The flurry of action strikes a severe contrast.

Democrats don’t see government service as a way to govern on behalf of constituents, but instead as a way to use the tax dollars, earned with valuable time resources belonging to Americans, to fund their ideological pet projects. They use government as a way to launder money for schemes that would never survive in the private sector. Government everywhere has been hijacked by leftist activists who launder the hard-earned tax dollars of Americans to fund their woke, anti-America projects. Trump is ending this free-for-all and reminding voters they made the right choice at the ballot box in November.

Tweet

DEI: "Do no harm" is really "Hire who we say you gotta"

Yes, I realize the title of this post is ungrammatical but that's intentional as it was inspired by the concept of D.E.I. or 'diversity, equity, and inclusion.' So grammar isn't as important as the person behind the words. 

Of course, in my case, the words were written by a white male, which is viewed as problematic for D.E.I. advocates since I am supposed to be an oppressor, a person of white male privilege, possibly even a white supremacist and racist. I wholeheartedly disagree with that conclusion as I felt no privilege as a member of the military who fought in a war for our country; a man married to a woman who is not white; and a person whose religion has become a target of hatred.

But let's get back to D.E.I. 

In the health care profession, the goal of providers is to "do no harm," a sentiment attributed to the Hippocratic Oath, an ethical code historically taken by physicians and applies to medical ethics in general. Thus, the well-being and safety of patients in all medical decisions and actions is to be prioritized.

However, as D.E.I. policies have wormed their way into health care and other professions where merit was the deciding factor in hiring, the patients have become secondary and virtue signaling has taken the place of 'do no harm.'

For example, UC Davis Health in Sacramento, CA, breast cancer surgeon applicants don't need to submit a statement about teaching and research they performed. Instead, they must explain how they will advance DEI:

At @UCDavisHealth, breast cancer surgeon applicants DON'T need to submit a statement about teaching and research.

They DO need to explain how they will advance DEI.https://t.co/tNM6pPzQgP— Matt Lamb (@MattLamb22)

“Contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion documented in the application file will be used to evaluate applicants,” the job listing for an “academic surgical oncologist/breast surgeon” states.

D.E.I. is related to oncological surgery like fishing is to tennis. 

Who cares that their cancer is being treated by a person who has advanced D.E.I.? I would prefer the surgeon has advanced cancer treatment or is up on the very latest work in that area of medical practice. 

UC Davis Health cares more about appeasing the woke virtue signalers than they are about their patients. The Left would rather see you die at the hands of a woke, racially diverse surgeon, than live due to the skills of a more qualified one.

First they came for the big companies, then they came for the teachers, then they came for the health care providers and now they're coming for air traffic control and airline pilots.

They are uncaring, horrible people who only care about their Marxist agenda. 

Be very careful who you trust.

Tweet