(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Friday dissent in Trump v. Casa left the conservative members of the court and critics online dumbfounded, after she argued in favor of district courts’ power to issue nationwide injunctions.
Jackson, a Biden appointee, lamented the court’s refusal to uphold nationwide injunctions from district courts—despite their limited jurisdiction—to block President Donald Trump’s policies. This specific case dealt with an injunction temporarily blocking Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship.
lol that marbury cite must be the closest the majority has come to straight up calling a dissenting justice retarded.https://t.co/qNpYbtBylO pic.twitter.com/XgMJgnYY2i
— AutoAdmit (@autoadmitdotcom) June 27, 2025
Writing for the 6–3 majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, slammed Jackson’s position as “more extreme” than even the broadest defenders of universal injunctions.
“She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant is part of the Executive Branch,” Barrett wrote. “If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions.”
Barrett went further, affirming Jackson’s opinion “is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” she added.
Barrett concluded with a stinging rebuke, invoking the Judiciary Act of 1789 and mocking Jackson’s dismissal of judicial limits:
“JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ post, at 3, she 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?’ Ibid. 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.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”
Jackson’s claims also prompted mockery on X, with critics—including the satirical site Babylon Bee—blasting her dissent as incoherent.
Ketanji Brown Jackson Pauses Oral Arguments To Ask Clarence Thomas 'What Is A Constitution' https://t.co/oOLGSVBTWW pic.twitter.com/mX4BgZMKLR
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) June 27, 2025
In Powerful Dissent, Ketanji Brown Jackson Simply Writes 'Wakanda Forever' https://t.co/JJvvUxxmlM pic.twitter.com/8uRoADtvxE
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) June 27, 2025
