Barrett blasts Jackson for ‘extreme’ dissent in nationwide injunctions case
In a recent Supreme Court opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett criticized her colleague, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for taking what she described as an “extreme” position on the role of the judiciary branch. Barrett argued that Jackson’s dissent in the case on nationwide injunctions contained “rhetoric” and suggested that her arguments were not in line with longstanding legal precedent.
Barrett, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote that Jackson’s stance on nationwide injunctions was at odds with over two centuries of legal precedent and the Constitution itself. She accused Jackson of embracing an “imperial Judiciary” while criticizing the executive branch.
The Supreme Court’s decision came in response to an emergency request from the Trump administration to end the practice of judges issuing universal injunctions, including those that have blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Barrett argued that such nationwide injunctions amount to judicial overreach and should only apply to the parties involved in the case.
However, Barrett’s opinion did not completely foreclose the possibility of plaintiffs seeking broad relief from the courts through other means, such as class action lawsuits or statewide litigation. She emphasized that the issue at hand was the use of nationwide injunctions, rather than the ability of plaintiffs to challenge government policies in court.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson contended that nationwide injunctions should be permissible in cases where the president is violating the Constitution. Barrett dismissed this argument as not grounded in legal doctrine and criticized Jackson for advocating a vision of the judicial role that she deemed excessive.
Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate dissent in which she accused the Supreme Court of being “complicit” in allowing the Trump administration to claim a victory over birthright citizenship. Sotomayor argued that the courts should continue to block Trump’s birthright citizenship order, as previous courts have done.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision on nationwide injunctions leaves open the possibility for continued legal challenges to Trump’s birthright citizenship order. While the court rejected the use of broad injunctions, it did not entirely foreclose the possibility of other legal avenues for plaintiffs to challenge government policies. The debate over the role of the judiciary in checking executive power is likely to continue in future cases.
