Featured Post from Augusta University

Ketanji Brown Jackson could be the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Augusta University experts can answer your questions

Feb 28, 2022

3 min

It’s official — President Biden has selected Ketanji Brown Jackson as his nominee to the Supreme Court.


If confirmed, she will the first Black woman to sit on the highest court in the nation.



This is a momentous occasion for American history and reporters are clamoring to learn more. Our experts are ready with answers to help with your stories.


Dr. Martha Ginn, professor of political science at Augusta University, is an expert on the judicial process, constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. She discussed Jackson's credentials and the significance of her nomination.


What is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s background and what credentials would bring to the Supreme Court? Why is she President Biden's top choice?


President Biden made a campaign promise to nominate a Black woman to the SCOTUS if he had a vacancy to fill. While he had several strong contenders, Judge Brown Jackson is an obvious choice for many reasons.

Like all current Justices, excluding Justice Barrett, Judge Brown Jackson has an Ivy League education. She has also clerked at the Supreme Court for Justice Breyer (whom she would replace).

Interestingly, Justice Kavanaugh clerked for the Justice he replaced (Justice Kennedy) as well.

Background and experience: Judge Brown Jackson was a federal district court judge for eight years (appointed by President Obama) and was just confirmed to the DC Court of Appeals last summer. The DC circuit court is seen as a training ground of sorts for Supreme Court Justices, as many nominees serve there first.

What makes Judge Brown Jackson different is her experience as a public defender and then vice chairman of the sentencing commission. Bringing that experience to the Court will provide a much needed perspective on the rights of the accused. The Court recently heard a case regarding implementing the First Steps Act retroactively and it was apparent in the oral argument that some Justices did not appreciate the realities and complexities of sentencing in our criminal justice system. Judge Brown Jackson’s background will help fill that void.




What does her appointment signify, seeing as she would be the first Black woman (but only third Black justice) in the history of the Supreme Court, as well as the first former public defender?


Having four women on the Court at the same time will be important. More women than men attend law school now but the higher ranks of the profession are still male dominated, so having near parity in the nation’s highest Court is meaningful. Her race is also significant, since she will be only the third Black member of the Court and this would be the first time we have two Black members serving together.

It’s likely she and Justice Thomas will be very different ideologically but regardless, demographic representation matters. More than ever the Supreme Court is deciding very controversial matters that impact everyone. Having a Court that represents all voices is significant in maintaining its legitimacy and making sure opposing viewpoints are considered in decision-making.


With everything going on currently the nation and world, when do you project a vote will happen, and do you see it going through?


Even with all that is going on in the world right now, this will be a top priority to the Democratic Party, particularly with President Biden’s low polling numbers and the upcoming midterm elections.

With the slimmest of voting margins possible, the sooner the vote occurs, the better for the Democrats. The Republicans set the precedent with the Barrett nomination that the process can be done in weeks rather than the months taken in previous nominations. I anticipate the Democrats will follow that expedited model. It will be interesting to see if the three Republican senators who voted for her Court of Appeals appointment less than a year ago will oppose her nomination here.

Justice Breyer conditioned his retirement on the successful appointment of his replacement. He intends to retire at the end of this year’s term (likely early July), so I would anticipate her confirmation vote by then at the latest.



If you are a journalist covering this story, that’s where our experts on this topic can help.



Dr. Martha Ginn, professor of political science at Augusta University, is an expert on the judicial process, constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. Ginn is available to speak with media about this topic — simply click on her icon to arrange an interview today.



You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Augusta University

2 min

Experts in the Media: With Kemp bowing out of mid-terms is Georgia staying blue?

Control of the Senate is key for most administrations, and with a razor-thin edge favoring the Republicans, any pickup to keep control of the Senate after the mid-term elections is a priority. However, with a heavy favorite in Gov. Brian Kemp stepping away from the chance to run for the GOP, many are speculating the once traditionally Republican stronghold could stay blue under the Democrats with the re-election of Sen. Jon Ossoff. It's a topic that has political watchers and media trying to cover and figure out as parties get ready to get back on the campaign trail for next year. It's also why journalists and news outlets like Newsweek are connecting with experts like William Hatcher, PhD, for expert opinion and perspective. An award-winning scholar, Hatcher is the chair of the Department of Social Sciences and a professor of political science. His research focuses on the connection between public administration and the development of local communities. Kemp's decision not to challenge Ossoff in the state's 2026 Senate race could be a boon to Democrats' chances of holding the seat in the battleground state, according to recent polls... Kemp's announcement follows months of speculation about whether he would challenge Ossoff, a Democrat first elected in 2020. Polls suggest Kemp would have been the strongest candidate against Ossoff and that other potential Republicans trail the incumbent senator in a hypothetical matchup. "Given that Kemp was perhaps the strongest candidate to face Ossoff, his decision to not run will make it difficult to find another candidate that would be as competitive. However, the election is over a year away, and in politics, a lot can happen in that amount of time," William Hatcher, chair and professor of social sciences at Augusta University, told Newsweek on Tuesday. A poll from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that Kemp led Ossoff by 3.3 points (49% to 45.7%), Ossoff led three other prospective challengers. That poll surveyed 1,426 respondents from April 24 to April 27, 2025, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. Hatcher said the state Republicans face a "limited" bench to challenge Ossoff, but whoever prevails will eventually have to defend Trump's "unpopular economic policies that will most likely adversely affect states like Georgia, particularly his recent commentary on leveling tariffs on the film industry – a industry that has a significant presence in Georgia." May 06 - Newsweek The race is obviously already on for the mid-term elections in November of 2026, and if you're a journalist looking to cover Georgia politics, let us help. William Hatcher, PhD, is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

3 min

Annual Healthy Georgia Report looks at public health in the Peach State

The fourth edition of the “Healthy Georgia: Our State of Public Health” report has been released by the Institute of Public and Preventive Health in Augusta University’s School of Public Health. Within the 64 pages of the report is a snapshot of how healthy Georgians are compared to citizens across the 12 states that make up the Southeastern Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) and the entire United States. The 2025 edition addresses 31 health topics and has been expanded this year to include multimorbidity; long COVID-19; HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis infection rates; opioid and methamphetamine drug use; suicides; and vaping. Biplab Datta, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Health Management, Economics, and Policy in SPH, heads up the team of IPPH faculty and staff who create the report each year. Datta credits Jen Jaremski, research associate, and Kit Wooten, public health analyst, with handling much of the work of bringing the report to life. Together, Jaremski and Wooten collected and organized all of the needed assets and organized the 64-page document, preparing it for print and the web. “Every year we strive to present data in a way that policymakers may find helpful in making policy choices,” Datta said. “There are several new topics that were added to this year’s report and some of those are concerning for the state of Georgia, particularly the communicable diseases like HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. High prevalence rates of these conditions in Georgia, compared to the rest of the U.S. and the Southeastern Region, warrant attention of the public health community.” Georgia has the second-highest rate of HIV infections in the U.S., fourth-highest rates of gonorrhea, sixth-highest for chlamydia and 13th for syphilis. Something that is also new in this year’s report is a comparison of numbers from 2019, or before the COVID-19 pandemic began, compared to after the pandemic for certain conditions. Also coming out of the pandemic, the report looks at how long COVID has affected Georgians, with the state ranking 24th in the nation for rates of long COVID. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID is defined as a chronic condition that occurs after COVID-19 infection and is present for at least three months. On top of looking at comparisons between Georgia and the Southeast and the nation, Datta noted a clearer picture is starting to emerge concerning the difference in urban and rural areas within the state. “For several chronic conditions, like hypertension, diabetes and multimorbidity, we clearly see a striking difference between rural and urban residents of Georgia,” Datta said. Hypertension affects 44.1% of adults in rural Georgia compared to 35% in urban areas, while diabetes affects 17.5% of adults in rural Georgia compared to 12.3% of those in urban areas. Hypertension and diabetes are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease, which affects 12.2% of adults in rural areas compared to 8.3% of adults in urban areas of Georgia. “Hypertension and diabetes are the major risk factors for heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the U.S. and worldwide, so these are some concerning numbers to see,” Datta said. Multimorbidity, which is when a person has multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, cancer, skin cancer and arthritis, affects 57.4% of adults in rural Georgia compared to 49% of adults in urban areas of the state. These rates are significantly lower than the rest of the Southeast but on par with the rest of the country. When comparing Georgia to the U.S. national average, adults in Georgia have lower rates of cancer and methamphetamine use but higher rates of childhood asthma and adult obesity. At the same time, rates of adult asthma and adult obesity among Georgians were comparable to the averages seen in the Southeast. Interestingly, while adult health insurance coverage was significantly lower than the U.S. national and Southeast Regional averages, the child health insurance coverage in Georgia was comparable to both national and regional averages. The Healthy Georgia Report is the only report of its kind in the state Looking to know more or connect with Biplab Datta, PhD? Then let us help. Dr. Datta is available to speak with media regarding this important topic. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

3 min

Expert Q&A - Craig Albert, PhD, talks election interference

Going into the final days of the 2024 election cycle there is a very real concern about election interference from both foreign and domestic actors, and it's something that will continue to be monitored even after the final votes are tallied. Craig Albert, PhD, graduate director of the PhD in Intelligence, Defense, and Cybersecurity Policy and Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies programs at Augusta University, is a leading expert on propaganda, information warfare and national security studies. Albert has answered key questions about who is trying to interfere in the U.S. elections and why it matters. Q: How and when should someone vote and does it protect you more to avoid interference? The access to instantaneous news or events could affect people and their understanding of whom they want to vote for all the way up until the day they vote. Because of this ease of access, this election cycle has especially shown us how cautious we need to be in regards to scams. It's also why I know there has been a big push for early voting and mail-in voting, and it's necessary in some cases, but I prefer to vote on Election Day because you never know what type of news might come out about one of the candidates or parties. If something comes out that proves to be true, it could affect how someone might vote, but if you voted before Election Day, it's too late. At the same time, a very serious deepfake could be released that could manipulate how people choose to vote and it could mislead people, as well. Q: What are the consequences of the optics of an 'unfair' election? What the U.S. needs to be cautious about is preserving and maintaining the legitimacy of the election cycle. After the election, no matter who wins, narratives of interference and how it impacted the election are going to be shared and that's just irresponsible. Unless there's damning information and very clear evidence, you shouldn't mess around with the idea that the election was interfered with, because that could threaten the very structure of the United States. Q: What's the potential for post-election meddling? We have domestic bad actors as well as foreign maligned actors that are going to say the election was delegitimized no matter who wins. They have social media campaigns ready to post no matter which side wins, they're going to circulate false videos of ballot boxes burning or news that not all the the votes were counted and things of that nature. They're going to do all kinds of things because anybody can fake a ballot box being burned or mail in votes not being counted properly on video or something like that. The problem is if it goes out there or becomes viral, so many people will believe it and that sows discord. So, that creates distrust in the public system on a pretty big swath of the American population. Q: Who benefits from post-election doubts and chaos? You have foreign actors that really build on the type of anger that the political candidates and their parties already use through their propaganda and rhetoric. We have already seen Russia amplifying the message that somebody cheated or elections were hacked, and you have China, Iran, Venezuela, ISIS and Al Qaeda doing that, as well. You also have regular cyber criminals that just want to sew discord and distress so they can manipulate people later on and get into our banking systems and things of that nature. You have potentially hundreds, if not thousands of attack vectors coming at the United States between election night and January 20 when the new President will be sworn in. And then afterwards, they will all still be trying to create chaos, rebellion, civil unrest, or in the case of Iran, China and Russia, open civil war in the United States. Looking to know more and covering the election, Augusta University can help. Albert is available to speak with media – simply click on his name to arrange an interview today.

View all posts
Powered by