From NY Post: Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stunned veteran bench watchers Friday with a blunt takedown of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s “extreme” dissent in the landmark birthright citizenship case in which the Supreme Court curtailed lower court use of universal injunctions.
“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,” wrote Barrett, the court’s second-newest justice, in a jaw-dropping rebuke of her colleague, the newest justice.
“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Barrett authored the majority opinion on a historic decision that limits the power of district judges.
Meanwhile Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the main dissent for the left-leaning justices, including Jackson. Jackson also wrote her own dissent, that focused on what the decision would mean rather than constitutional law.
“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,” Jackson wrote.
“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.’”
Jackson accused the “majority” of being “so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”
Jackson dismissed the importance of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the federal court system in the United States and was signed into law by President George Washington himself. See called it “legalese” and said focusing on 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 had a biting response.
“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?’
“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.”
WOW! Justice Barrett writes an absolutely stunning takedown of Justice Jackson’s dissent in TRUMP v CASA, INC.
Justice Jackson tries to imply judges are above the law, and Justice Barratt dismantles her argument wholesale, citing the most basic of cases: MARBURY v MADISON. pic.twitter.com/MxjFzPi5Dz
— David M. McIntosh (@DavidMMcintosh) June 27, 2025
Amazing. Justice Barrett goes straight after Justice Jackson’s inability to do law. Jackson wants to tell the entire executive branch what to do and refuses to comply with Constitutional limitations. Insanely dangerous, and Barrett is right to call it out. pic.twitter.com/lRmkQvEgYZ
— May Mailman (@MayMailman) June 27, 2025
READ MORE AT NY Post.
