Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a striking and sharply worded dismissal of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in a major case on birthright citizenship, surprising many who closely follow the court’s inner dynamics. In the ruling, which curtailed the ability of lower courts to issue sweeping injunctions, Barrett offered a blunt critique of Jackson’s reasoning.
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote, forcefully rejecting the basis of Jackson’s stance. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion in the decision seen as a significant win for President Trump, limited the authority of federal district courts to halt presidential actions with universal injunctions—a judicial practice that has become increasingly common in recent years.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the primary dissenting opinion on behalf of the liberal justices, joined by Jackson. However, Jackson also issued her own dissent, expanding on the concerns she felt were being overlooked by the court’s conservative majority.
Jackson’s separate opinion focused less on statutory interpretation and more on what she described as dangerous consequences of the ruling. “It is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” she warned in stark language.
Elsewhere, Jackson argued that the case wasn’t just about technicalities but raised core questions about checks and balances: “Quite unlike a rule-of-kings governing system, in a rule of law regime, nearly ‘[e]very act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law,’” she wrote. “At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”
She further dismissed legal debates surrounding the Judiciary Act of 1789 as obfuscating the essential issue. “Legalese” is how she referred to it, adding that it “obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?”
Barrett responded with a tone that verged on sarcastic: “Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ [Jackson] seeks to answer ‘a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?’”
She continued: “In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.”
Though Barrett acknowledged that Sotomayor stayed within the boundaries of traditional legal reasoning, she had far less patience for Jackson’s approach. “While Justice Sotomayor focuses her dissent on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” Barrett noted, Jackson veered off in a completely different direction. Barrett described her colleague’s argument as “a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.”
Barrett was especially critical of Jackson’s dismissal of legal limitations on judicial power. “Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query’ … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,” she wrote.
Adding to the tension, Jackson did not close her opinion with the customary “I dissent” or “Respectfully, I dissent,” an omission that court observers interpreted as a sign of deep discontent.
“It’s not something that we see every day,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird said in an interview with The Post, referring to Barrett’s unusually direct criticism. Bird noted, however, that Barrett’s comments remained focused on legal arguments rather than descending into personal attacks.
Reactions on social media were swift and intense. “Holy …, this is about as brutal as I’ve ever seen SCOTUS be on one of their own,” attorney Kostas Moros posted on X, quoting Barrett’s “imperial Judiciary” line. “Translated: ‘you are so stupid that you aren’t even worth responding to.’”
Others suggested Barrett’s harsh tone might reflect growing frustration within the court. “The FACT that six Justices were OK with signing onto an opinion where Justice Barrett took a personal shot at Justice Jackson is a VERY STRONG indication that Jackson has alienated her colleagues and there is a growing lack of respect for her work,” wrote X user Shipwreckedcrew, who identifies as a former federal prosecutor.
He added that Jackson’s dissent likely followed heated exchanges behind the scenes. “Justices circulate Memos among with their legal views on certain cases in order to bring others around to their thinking. Given what she has written in her dissent, imagine the memos that Jackson must have sent around in this case.”
The legal backdrop to the dispute involved three lower courts that had blocked President Trump’s January 20 executive order, which aimed to redefine birthright citizenship. Those courts determined the order likely violated constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil.
The Supreme Court’s decision did not take a position on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order itself. Instead, it focused solely on the scope of judicial authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
{Matzav.com}