+
The Supreme Court

SCOTUS SMACKDOWN! Amy Coney Barrett Shreds Ketanji Brown Jackson Over Birthright Citizenship Dissent

posted by Hannity Staff - 6.27.25

ACB benches KBJ…

According to a New York Post report, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett shocked longtime court watchers Friday with a sharp rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s “extreme” dissent in the landmark birthright citizenship ruling.

Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, dismissed Jackson’s objections as out of step with both precedent and principle, as the Court moved to rein in the sweeping use of universal injunctions by lower courts.

“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 in a sharp rebuke of her colleague.

“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

From The New York Post:

Barrett had authored the majority opinion in the case, the most consequential on the docket this term, which gave President Trump a major win by limiting the power of district judges to block his actions.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the main dissent for the left flank of the high court, which Jackson joined.

But Jackson also wrote a concurring dissent that featured a heavy fixation on the potential practical ramifications of the 6-3 decision rather than grounding her argument in legal theory.

“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 dramatically fretted at one point.

“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 wrote elsewhere. “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.”

Jackson even went so far as to dismiss the question of whether universal injunctions were provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789 as “legalese” that “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’s response in her opinion was almost mocking: “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,’” Barrett continued.

“That goes for judges too.”

More over at The New York Post: