Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked, “We see these astonishing lines of attack that don’t really connect to any established doctrine.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett expressed similar sentiments in relation to Jackson’s dissent in the Trump vs. Casa, Inc. case. This lawsuit revolves around whether the Supreme Court should uphold a national injunction against President Donald Trump regarding a Presidential Order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, effective January 20, 2025. The court’s decision followed the usual political lines: six conservative justices sided with Casa, Inc.
🚨breaking The Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a demand for the partial enforcement of the birthright citizenship order.
Decided 6-3. pic.twitter.com/coyqhfaywr
– Daily Caller (@dailycaller) June 27, 2025
Jackson not only disputed the ruling but did so with a sense of “deep disillusionment,” highlighting her concerns that “a universal injunction would likely exceed the fair powers given to federal courts.” Barrett delivered the court’s opinion.
“By the end of the Biden administration, we reached nearly every major presidential act,” Barrett noted as the U.S. District Court responded swiftly.
The appeal from the Trump administration to the Supreme Court didn’t question the legality of the executive order but was more focused on whether federal district courts had the power to issue universal injunctions. In this instance, the injunction barred anyone from enforcing the executive order, beyond just the local plaintiffs involved in the case.
Barrett pointed out a significant judicial overreach, stating that “the bottom line is that a universal injunction hasn’t been a common practice in most of our history.”
Trump wins big victory in a birthright citizenship case as the Supreme Court restrains national injunction https://t.co/c7fyvcgqwl pic.twitter.com/bqq1hvpdup
– New York Post (@nypost) June 27, 2025
After laying out a solid argument for the majority opinion, Barrett began addressing Jackson’s dissent.
“We can’t overlook [Jackson’s viewpoint]. She raised issues that contradict over 200 years of precedent,” Barrett asserted. “Jackson seems to prefer reducing the powers of the executive while expanding those of the judiciary.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett did not inscribe certain words from her majority opinion. https://t.co/8fap70ggyi pic.twitter.com/vjtebmj7tv
– Daily Caller (@dailycaller) June 27, 2025
Barrett explained that Jackson seems to advocate for a judicial role that is overly expansive, arguing that the law should apply universally, even to the executive branch. She interpreted Jackson’s dissent as suggesting that her laws must be adhered to universally, especially when it involves executive actions.
Barrett mused that Jackson seemed to shy away from rigorous legal analysis, implying that she found it cumbersome. The analysis of governance law could be tricky, sometimes bordering on convoluted.
Barrett wrapped up by offering a seemingly straightforward piece of advice: “Learning her own recommendations could benefit [Jackson]. The President is answerable to the law, and that extends to judges, too.” This remark felt dismissive, perhaps even condescending, towards Jackson.
Jackson countered that the majority’s reasoning seems to focus on “outdated comparisons,” asserting that her colleagues displayed a kind of “constitutional myopia.” She accused them of significant errors in their interpretation of the law and described their ruling as “seriously dangerous,” suggesting that her dissent often reflected deeper emotional responses than legal reasoning.
“For the majority, a power-hungry actor… (wait for it)… District Court,” Jackson mentioned, highlighting how her arguments often included pointed critiques.
The most troubling aspect of Jackson’s service appears to be her occasional lapses in judgment, as there’s a sense that even her peers recognize her shortcomings. While she may be intellectually astute, the general perception is that she struggles to navigate her own limitations.
