In an unprecedented critique of the Supreme Court's recent rulings, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has invoked the anarchic spirit of Calvinball to describe the Court's fluctuating adherence to legal precedents. This term was coined in reference to a game from the beloved comic strip *Calvin & Hobbes*, where the only rule is that the rules are subject to constant change. Justice Jackson's analogy came during her dissent in the case of National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association.

At the heart of the controversy are the NIH's decisions to terminate several scientific grants, actions labeled as "arbitrary and capricious" under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act. These terminations have been variously justified by the current administration, citing reasons ranging from anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) to the promotion of "gender ideology." However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, sidestepped these justifications, assuring that the government had provided "persuasive" reasoning in its application to the Court.

Justice Jackson's dissent sharply criticizes this approach, suggesting that the Court is playing a judicial version of Calvinball, with rules that are conveniently flexible depending on the administration in power. She points out that the Court has now set a precedent that seems to favor executive decisions, regardless of their consistency or adherence to established legal standards.

Interestingly, the split decision on the NIH case underlines a broader judicial inconsistency. While one faction of the Court allowed the grant terminations to proceed, another simultaneously upheld a stay against further government cuts, leading to a convoluted legal scenario. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in particular, found herself isolated with a stance that required plaintiffs to sequentially—rather than simultaneously—challenge the cuts in different courts. Chief Justice John Roberts critiqued this position, highlighting its practical inefficiencies.

In conclusion, Justice Jackson warns of the real-world impacts of these judicial decisions, emphasizing that the outcomes extend far beyond theoretical legal debates and affect critical public health research. Her use of the term "Calvinball jurisprudence" underscores a Supreme Court deeply divided not just in legal philosophy, but in its consistency and fidelity to the rule of law. As this contentious term progresses, the legal community and the public alike are left to wonder about the long-term consequences of a Supreme Court that, in Jackson's view, seems to be making up the rules as it goes.